Latest news with #NickShepack
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
As NV lawmakers speed toward red light camera law, civil rights groups want to pump the brakes
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) 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 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.' [/subhed] 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.' 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.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Yahoo
Lawmakers propose tougher traffic laws, critics prefer smarter infrastructure
(Photo: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) In a response to rising traffic fatalities throughout Nevada, state lawmakers are proposing to increase traffic penalties and authorize harsher enforcement. But laws already exist to punish reckless driving, and legislative efforts being considered this session won't address the underlying conditions that make roads hazardous, argue critics of the proposals. Nick Shepack, the Nevada state Director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, urged lawmakers to consider ways to make roadway infrastructure better to increase safety and reduce speeds. 'If legislators take the data seriously and use best practices, I think we can do a lot to make our roads safer,' Shepack said. 'If we default to criminalizing behavior that we've previously decriminalized, or criminalizing new behaviors, I don't have a lot of hope that we're going to see much impact on traffic safety.' Road safety proposals come as the number of fatalities in the state from 2019 to 2022 has increased 36%, lawmakers were told by the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety within the Department of Public Safety during the interim legislative session. Lawmakers last week heard two of several bills being proposed this session that seek to either stiffen traffic penalties or increase enforcement. Assembly Bill 54, sponsored by the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee, would make it a felony for motorists to fail to move over for emergency services providers and their failing to do so results in the death or injury of a first responder. Assembly Bill 111, sponsored and presented by Republican Assemblymember Brian Hibbetts, makes driving the wrong way a misdemeanor crime. Supporters for both bills, which were heard during an Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting earlier this month, said recent, high-profile traffic fatalities prompted the measures. The family of Jaya Brooks, a three year old who was killed by a driver going the wrong way, testified in support of AB 111. Nevada Highway Patrol troopers who testified for AB 54 said the legislation was prompted by the deaths of Highway Patrol Sergeant Michael Abbate and Trooper Alberto Felix, who were killed in 2023. The driver pled guilty to two counts of driving under the influence and was sentenced to 16 years. Proponents for both bills argued existing laws don't do enough to prevent traffic fatalities 'I think all the tools are there and exist,' Shepack said in an interview. What doesn't exist, he added, is greater efforts to change the infrastructure of streets to make them more safe. Shepack said the stories from families reflecting on the loss were devastating and the legislation is well-intentioned. 'I do fear that if we continue to move in this direction where we piecemeal legislation, make one thing criminal again because of tragedy, we will end up in a position where we have an extreme hodgepodge of traffic laws and really haven't done anything to address the underlying issues that lead to traffic fatalities,' he said. State lawmakers in recent legislative sessions have worked to decriminalize low-level traffic offenses in an effort to address disparities and stricter enforcement among communities of color and low income communities. Legislation passed in 2021 converted minor traffic infractions, like driving with a broken taillight and failure to yield to a full stop at a stop sign, from a criminal infraction to a civil one. The legislation passed easily with bipartisan support, only Assemblymember Gregory Hafen and state Sen. Ira Hansen, both Republicans, opposed. Making the case to lawmakers for the proposal to increase the criminality of wrong-way driving, Hibbetts, the measure's sponsor, singled out the provision of AB 116 that removed criminal penalties for driving the wrong way. 'Even if driving the wrong way results in an accident, it remains a civil matter unless there is substantial bodily harm or death,' Hibbetts said. 'I think this is one we got wrong.' He said it wasn't enough to prosecute reckless driving, which he said is difficult to prove in court. Lawmakers didn't ask any questions during the hearing, and no one spoke in opposition to the measure. In an interview following the hearing, Shepack questioned how the bill would deter wrong-way driving and prevent accidents. 'We know that infrastructure changes to on-ramps and off-ramps is what reduces these types of incidents,' he said. The bill cracking down on drivers who don't pull over for emergency vehicles would help deter such negligence, Nevada Highway Patrol Captain Nathan Peterson told lawmakers. 'Drivers today continue to ignore the law and the consequences are often deadly,' he said. 'When a driver fails to move over and that violation results in the death or serious injury of a responder, the outcome is catastrophic. However, current penalties fail to reflect the behavior and the severity of the harm caused.' He noted that first responders 'face extreme risk' when responding to traffic accidents. Reno Democratic Assemblymember Erica Roth questioned why the state needed an additional penalty outside what already exists in law to punish drivers who neglect laws and harm others. Roth noted that last session that state increased penalties for a driver going more than 50 miles per hour over the posted speed limit and then causing the death of another. The bill, known as Rex's Law, was named after a 13-year-old boy killed by a driver going more than 90 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. 'My concern with this bill is that this conduct is already covered, because what you have explained, the situation you've explained to me, is covered under the reckless driving statute,' Roth said. Peterson said the provisions in AB 54 were specific to people who violated Nevada's 'move over' law. 'It holds drivers accountable when their negligence causes catastrophic harm,' he said. Paloma Guerrero, a deputy public defender with the Clark County Public Defender's Office, warned the bill doesn't take into account the context of the situation and worried that a driver could incidentally violate the law and still be subjected to a felony. The example she gave is if a driver had a medical incident while driving. 'This bill as written would criminalize accidental behavior,' she said. 'We cannot create accidental conduct as a felony.' The committee took no action on the bills. Legislation to criminalize road rage has already been introduced. Senate Bill 37, which hasn't been heard yet, is designed for a motorist who 'knowingly operates a vehicle in a manner intended to intimidate, harass, frighten, alarm or distress the driver.' A bill authorizing the use of automated traffic enforcement, such as speeding cameras and red light cameras, is also expected to be heard this session. The language for the bill hasn't been released yet. The Fines and Fees Justice Center opposed the idea of traffic cameras when it was discussed during the interim legislative session. Shepack worried that depending on the language of the bill, it could create a situation where 'you will see cameras on roads that clearly have infrastructure needs long before you see public works projects beginning.' 'I think we are moving to address an infrastructure problem with criminalization via robot,' Shepack said. 'You are very likely to see cameras go up before these basic infrastructure needs are met. And it's simply because one costs money while it's the right thing to do and the other one generates revenue, so it's a much easier thing to do.' The bill is still being drafted, and Shepack said his group has submitted recommendations to the Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure. Those recommendations include starting with a pilot program and data-driven justification for implementation. If the state is going to use cameras, the legislation should require ample data to show it is meeting its goals, Shepack said. He also hopes to see provisions that prevent counties and cities from prioritizing the revenue model feature of automated enforcement over public safety. 'Even if the program is not effective, if it's profitable, it makes it really difficult to come back and reform it,' Shepack said. 'We would like to see that revenue go directly to infrastructure needs on the roads with the goal of removing the cameras.'
