School zone camera bills: One to ban them, one to reform. But both overturn the system
The Georgia House of Representatives approved two measures for reeling in automated school zone speed cameras, sending both over to the state Senate.
House Bill 225 bans the cameras completely. House Bill 651 sets strict guidelines for operating them.
The latter bill also strikes language in current law allowing cities and counties to send unpaid tickets to the state Department of Revenue – which then blocks auto tag renewals until the fines are paid.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Alan Powell, R-Hartwell, acknowledged to the FOX 5 I-Team, that would effectively eliminate the incentive to pay the tickets, which are civil citations. "Who's to push anybody to pay?" he said.
Meanwhile, the I-Team found more than $700,000 in political donations over the past four years from three major camera companies.
ATLANTA - In the debate over what to do with school zone speed cameras popping up all over Georgia, the state House of Representatives has approved two solutions to the same problem.
On Tuesday, lawmakers approved one bill that outlaws the cameras – overturning the 2018 law that allowed automated ticketing systems near schools. The other bill would let them stay, but with a list of restrictions on when they can operate, how to warn oncoming traffic and what can be done with the proceeds.
But the FOX 5 I-Team has learned that even the reform bill would effectively overturn the system. Under its current language, there would be no penalty if a ticketed driver decided to toss his citation in the trash.
SEE ALSO: 2 school zone speed camera bills pass House, move to Georgia State Senate
The backstory
In 2018, then-Speaker of the House David Ralston worked with his Senate counterparts, during the final minutes of that year's session, to pass a bill that allowed school zone speed cameras. One of the lobbyists pushing the bill was Ralston's son, Matt.
The stated purpose was to slow traffic near schools, protecting students, parents, and school personnel. But critics claim the real motive has been easy revenue for local governments and private, out-of-state speed camera companies.
"We can safely say that fines have been issued at a level in excess of $200 million," state Rep. Dale Washburn, R-Macon, told his House colleagues Tuesday. "The school zone cameras are taking a percentage of that. Using a conservative estimate, they've probably taken $50 million out of Georgia."
Over the past seven years, complaints have poured in to lawmakers about the automated tickets. Drivers have claimed they were ticketed outside of school hours or on weekends, that cameras are set up on busy four-lanes where children don't walk, and that signage is too confusing.
The FOX 5 I-Team identified cameras in three cities where timing disconnects between cameras and flashing school zone lights misled drivers into speeding, or caused them to be cited them for speeding when they weren't. The I-Team's stories led to more than a half a million dollars in refunds for drivers.
"When people are being entrapped and issued tickets, with deceit and trickery, it is wrong," Washburn said in a House Motor Vehicles committee meeting last month. "And it's something we need to do something about."
Washburn introduced House Bill 225, which overturns the 2018 law. It would require police departments statewide to shut down the cameras entirely.
State Rep. Alan Powell, R-Hartwell, with the support of current Speaker of the House Jon Burns, introduced House Bill 651, which salvages the camera systems, but with strict guidelines.
By the numbers
The votes Tuesday showed more appetite for the reform bill than the total ban.
Washburn's bill passed by a vote of 129 to 37.
Powell's passed 164 to 8.
Both bills now move to the state Senate, which can grapple with the issue and make adjustments, additions and subtractions of its own.
Washburn said he does not think senators will be swayed by which bill got the most votes Tuesday.
Tickets from school zone cameras are civil citations, not criminal. They don't put points against drivers' licenses and they can't lead to jail time.
"I'm not sure that they'll pay that much attention to that," he said. "My goal is to get over to the Senate now, and begin to talk to some individual senators, and to talk to their leadership, and try to convince them that banning these school zone cameras is a good thing."
What the reform bill does
Powell called his bill "a second choice."
House Bill 651 would limit ticketing to two-hour periods on mornings and afternoons, when school starts and lets out.
"A lot of the jurisdictions were running these around the clock, through the day, sporting events," Powell told the I-Team. "It just became suspect. It became a 'gotcha.'"
His bill also requires feedback signs, informing oncoming drivers of their speeds before they pass a camera.
It requires half of a jurisdiction's speed camera ticket proceeds to go to local schools, to be used for school safety. It applies "speed trap" rules on cities and counties, setting limits on how much a government can collect from citations, in relation to their police budget – no more than 35 percent.
The bill eliminates $25 administrative fees that inflate citation amounts. So tickets can cost no more than $75 for a first violation and $125 for a second.
Under the bill, when the tickets arrive in the mail, the envelope has to be clearly marked, so as not to be confused with junk mail.
"The bill I passed was pretty radical about putting guardrails around this," Powell said.
But actually, he acknowledged to the I-Team, ticketed drivers could treat the citations like junk mail.
House Bill 651 eliminates the section of current law that allows cities and counties to send unpaid school zone tickets to the state Department of Revenue, which then blocks car tag renewals until the tickets are paid.
Tickets from school zone cameras are civil citations, not criminal. They don't put points against drivers' licenses, and they can't lead to jail time.
"If it doesn't go through the Revenue Department, who's to push anybody to pay," Powell said. "Either bill, we're getting to the same conclusion."
The other side
Bob Dallas, a former Governor's Office of Highway Safety director who's now a lobbyist for camera company Blue Line Solutions, said the company opposes many of the points in Powell's bill. (And it opposes Washburn's bill entirely.)
Dallas said, to keeps school zones safe, ticketing should be allowed throughout the school day. Children and parents come and go from a school building all day, he said.
He said Blue Line supports the warning devices, would agree to pay for them, and would also agree to requiring flashing school zone lights wherever automated cameras are placed.
The company opposes the 35-percent rule on revenues, which Dallas said would negatively impact smaller jurisdictions.
And Blue Line wants to keep the system of sending unpaid tickets to the Department of Revenue.
Washburn's ban bill received pushback on the House floor Tuesday. A lawmaker who represents South Fulton brought up the death of an 11-year-old outside Sandtown Middle School in 2018. A speeding car struck the car the girl was riding in.
"Is it not true that I shared with you that I was on the scene the day that a young middle school student was killed by a speeding driver ...?" State Rep. Robert Dawson, D-Atlanta, asked Washburn.
"It is a terrible tragedy whenever a child is killed," Washburn responded. "But I must say that there is little evidence that the cameras would have prevented that tragedy."
Dig deeper
Still to be determined as the Senate considers the bills: How much will some very large political donations factor into the outcome? That includes some sizable donations made to the head of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones.
For years, private camera companies have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaign coffers and political committees.
"They have given a lot of money here," Washburn said. "It's obviously very important to them, because they're making a lot of money. And so they are spending a lot of money.
"But the money they're spending is a very small percentage of the money they're taking out of Georgia."
The I-Team examined the past four years of donations from three major companies – RedSpeed, Blue Line Solutions and American Traffic Solutions, or Verra Mobility.
The total: $728,250.
More than half of that – $400,200 – poured in since February 2024, when now-retired state Rep. Clay Pirkle first floated a bill to ban the cameras entirely.
Since 2021, there's been $215,000 donated to the Georgia House Republican Trust, with a lion's share ($150,000) given by RedSpeed. Another $110,000 went to the Georgia Republican Senatorial Committee.
Lt. Gov. Jones's leadership committee received $171,000, also mostly from RedSpeed, and his campaign received another $38,500.
Jones's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the donations, but he said in a written statement to the I-Team, "I believe that school safety is a critical issue we must address through a variety of initiatives."
The I-Team also found $16,500 in camera company donations to Rep. Powell.
"I think if you looked at the outcome (Tuesday), political donations don't carry any weight about doing the right thing," Powell told the I-Team. "You saw two bills passed that's going to probably put these folks out of business in Georgia."
Dallas, the lobbyist, described the donations as camera companies' way of reaching out to policymakers to educate them on the issue. "What's happening – an industry representing it's desire to make school zones safe," he said.
READ MORE:
School zone speed cameras clash: Georgia lawmakers to debate on ban vs. reform
Fight to ban school zone speed cameras begins in Georgia House
Ga. lawmaker aims to shut down school zone speed cameras
I-Team: Thousands ticketed by school zone cameras set up further from the school than law allows
After I-Team investigations, ATL and Riverdale to automatically refund drivers wrongly ticketed by speed cams
The Source
The FOX 5 I-Team has been reporting on problems with school zone speed cameras for more than a year, discovering thousands of erroneous tickets issued in Atlanta, Jonesboro and Riverdale. I-Team reporter Johnny Edwards has been tracking bills dealing with the cameras at the state Legislature. He was at the Capitol for Tuesday's vote on two bills and interviewed the sponsors of both.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
44 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.


CNN
44 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law. Solve the daily Crossword