The Tennessee General Assembly on Tuesday gave final approval to legislation authorizing the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and Tennessee Highway Patrol to ticket motorists on interstate freeway work zones using automated cameras. Although many members in the House and Senate expressed strong opposition to the concept of photo enforcement, the authorization measure passed by an overwhelmingly 80 to 10 margin in the House and 28 to 0 in the Senate. The support was due in no small part to the bill’s wording, which granted authority to deploy cameras in the guise of restricting them. House Bill 1202 states . . .
No surveillance cameras shall be permitted on federal interstate highways except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when employees of the department or construction workers are present, surveillance cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that such cameras shall be operated only by a state entity.
The bill’s main sponsors, state Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) and state Representative Joe McCord (R-Maryville) both claimed to be personally opposed to the use of cameras. They also insisted that this bill was the best “limitation” that could be made under the political circumstances. The bottom line, however, is that as soon as Governor Phil Bredesen (D) signs the bill into law, TDOT and the state police will be free to deploy cameras—under one condition.
“They can’t have the cameras in work zones unless it’s a real work zone where people are working,” Burchett said.
The bill serves no purpose as a limitation on local jurisdictions because no local authorities use photo radar on interstates. A secondary provision in the legislation mandating the use of warning signs likewise will make no change in current practice.
“According to TDOT and the Department of Safety, surveillance cameras are not currently used on interstates,” the legislature’s analysis of the bill states. “Most local governments that utilize cameras already post signs.”
Burchett used the same deceptive tactic last year of “banning” practices that did not exist in order to give local jurisdictions authority to deploy red light cameras and speed cameras throughout the state. The bill became law on July 1, 2008. In House debate on freeway cameras Monday, the bill’s House sponsor claimed that there were not enough votes to ban speed cameras.
“If it were up to me, I would like to see an outright ban of these cameras used in this state,” Representative McCord said. “In order to get this bill out of committee . . . we made an agreement that unless the chairman of the subcommittee was comfortable with those that we would let no amendments go on because there is going to be a study committee this summer to deal with all these issues.”
Subcommittee Chairman Vince Dean (R-East Ridge) made it very clear where he stood on speed cameras as he struck down an amendment by Representative Chad Faulkner (R-Luttrell) that would have imposed a true ban on all forms of photo ticketing.
“This particular amendment would hit hard in a section in my town where speed cameras have actually saved lives,” Dean said. “We have documented proof to show where they have saved lives. But I promise you that we will look at this in our study this summer.”
Representative Joe Towns (D-Memphis) was the only member to note something out of place about McCord description of what was going on.
“Sponsor, first thing, I’d like for you to speak up a bit,” Towns said. “It’s almost like you’re trying to hide something from me…. What are you all going to be studying in the summer? You’re touting it as if it’s actually deal with one of our colleague’s questions that was posed earlier. What is going to come out of the summer study?”
McCord responded that the study would open the first public debate on the issue of photo enforcement, even though cameras have been in use for several years.
Article Excerpt:
Tennessee General Assembly
HOUSE BILL 1202
By McCord
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 6; Title 7 and Title 55, relative to surveillance cameras installed to enforce or monitor traffic laws.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-198, is amended by adding a new subsection thereto, as follows:
(e) No surveillance cameras shall be permitted on federal interstate highways except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when employees of the department or construction workers are present, surveillance cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that such cameras shall be operated only by a state entity.SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-198, is amended by adding the following language as new subsection (c) and by redesignating the present language accordingly:
(c) Effective July 1, 2009, a state agency or political subdivision of the state that installs, owns, operates, or maintains a traffic-control signal light located in an intersection that employs a surveillance camera for the enforcement or monitoring of traffic violations shall ensure that:
(1) The surveillance camera does not identify as a violation of § 55-8-110(a)(3), or any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference the language of such provision, any vehicle which legally entered the intersection during the green or yellow intervals in accordance with § 55-8-110(a)(1) and (2); and
(2) Appropriate signage is located not less than five hundred feet (500′) but not more than one thousand feet (1,000′) in advance of the intersection informing drivers as to the presence of surveillance cameras at the approaching intersection.If the state agency or political division of the state violates the provisions of this
subsection, then any traffic citation based solely on evidence generated by the surveillance camera shall be deemed to be invalid.SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.
Disclaimer:
I’m NOT a lawyer. If you need legal help see a lawyer. Do not take the following information as legal advice, as it is absolutely not legal advice. This is what I found on the internet & it may very well be superseded by new laws…
I’m pretty sure that in IL for automated tickets on highways they have to be able to positively identify the driver. At least that is what I read a couple of years ago. Anyone know if TN is the same? Edit: I have found the section & it is listed below.
I’ve never heard of a helmeted motorcyclist ticketed here via automatic camera on the highway. Kind of hard to identify with a full face helmet + sunglasses on.
Actually, it looks actually no automated min/max speed enforcement in construction zones can take effect unless an officer is present to witness the violation. I’m guessing that is why most people here ignore 45mph limits in construction zones….
illinois law
(625 ILCS 5/11‑612)
Sec. 11‑612. Certain systems to record vehicle speeds prohibited. Except as authorized in the Automated Traffic Control Systems in Highway Construction or Maintenance Zones Act, no photographic, video, or other imaging system may be used in this State to record vehicle speeds for the purpose of enforcing any law or ordinance regarding a maximum or minimum speed limit unless a law enforcement officer is present at the scene and witnesses the event. No State or local governmental entity, including a home rule county or municipality, may use such a system in a way that is prohibited by this Section. The regulation of the use of such systems is an exclusive power and function of the State. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.
(Source: P.A. 94‑771, eff. 1‑1‑07; 94‑795, eff. 5‑22‑06; 94‑814, eff. 1‑1‑07.)
Automated Traffic Control Systems in Highway Construction Zones act
(625 ILCS 7/25) Sec 25(e) states:
(e) If the driver of the vehicle cannot be identified through the photograph, the owner is not liable for the fine, and the citation may not be counted against the driving record of the owner. If the driver can be identified, the driver is liable for the fine, and the violation is counted against his or her driving record.
I’m also guessing that anyone from a state with no front plate also gets a pass due to the next section. Motorcycles in IL also don’t have a front plate:
(625 ILCS 7/30)
Sec. 30. Requirements for issuance of a citation.
(a) The vehicle, vehicle operator, vehicle registration plate, speed, date, time, and location must be clearly visible on the photograph or other recorded image of the alleged violation.
So sales of that license plate spray will be picking up in Tennessee?
This is really nothing more than a setup for the ultimate speed trap. There are going to be lots of unhappy people getting slapped with reckless driving and huge fines simply because knowing the exact speed limit and when it starts in construction zones is not very clear (at least in Detroit).
I don’t agree with speeding on construction zones at all, but especially right at the change points it will be far too easy to nab people going 20 or 30 over who are still slowing with traffic.
I can’t wait to get my ticket in the mail. It will say I was there, speeding on such and such date and I owe Tenesee $$$$$. Even though I live 700 miles away and was never there. I will call and get an automated service that says it can’t help me, the clock will run out, the fine will double. Brilliant. You know this will happen and they don’t care. This is all about revenue and nothing to do with safety.
Our state budget is in a death spiral. I figure they want the cash injection. Has little to do with actual speeders b/c the state troopers aren’t out as often now as they were when I was a kid and the speed limit was 55 mph.
This one is easy to live with. I’ll send letters to my state rep and tell them (if they voted FOR the cameras) that I’m not voiting for them and will tell everyone I meet that they voted for speed cameras.
I just bought a GPS navi-system. It advises me constantly what the speedlimit is with a speed limit sign on the screen and a warning tone (if I turn it on) that I am exceeding the road speed. I can also add POI-Warner which lists speed cameras on the GPS maps.
Lastly I think it is time to bring out my aircooled VWs which are pretty under powered and drive everywhere at 55 mph.
On the flip side maybe the truckers will slow the hell down finally and the retirees making the Michigan to Florida run will also slow down their $250K motorhomes + towed SUV. Got passed by two of those rigs the other day running 80+ mph. Not like they could stop or swerve to miss anything.
Let’s ban the speed cameras by using them – brilliant….
@robstar
TN doesn’t use front license plates so the whole photo from the front/driver identification thing won’t work the same here.
I’m not sure if they’ll just use a rear photo or if they’ll take multiple photos to try and get driver + plate.
One thing will lead to another. First somebody will contest it. Then the state will mandate front plates.
I’m from TN. I can’t imagine living anywhere else but I think this might be a good example of how short sighted the state gov’t is. Or how manipulating it is… dunno which.
Let the Troopers write lots of commercial traffic tickets. Better yet – restrict commercial traffic to 60 mph.
I don’t like the cameras. One could be totally safe but not notice your speed climbed ~5 mph and they’ve got you.
Good thing I just repaired my cruise control in my daily driver. Set that puppy at least ~5 mph under the posted speed and roll on. I’m not paying any tickets to fund their poor tax & spend plan.
Good old local TN mud splattered on the tag ends these shenanigans right quick. Let it dry good so even the rain won’t wash it off. *wink*
Yep, I can see it now. Perfectly detailed Corvette with a muddy license plate…. VBG!
as a resident of this great state, all i can say is someone has to pay for vw. the state is on the hook for the training of vw workers and surprise no money can be found, now that the ink is dry.
try living in the chattanooga area in general. all property taxes are headed up especially in the city.
east ridge where dean is from has always been a place for such screwball legislators. someone has to pay for their poor schemes as well.
well maybe in 8 more years your next president corker will give the whole union a taste of what unchecked capitalism can really be for america.