Bill Text: IA HF2681 | 2023-2024 | 90th General Assembly | Introduced

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: A bill for an act relating to automated traffic systems, including for traffic law enforcement and for capture of registration plate images, providing penalties, and including effective date provisions. (Formerly HSB 740.) Effective date: 05/17/2024, 07/01/2024.

Spectrum: Committee Bill

Status: (Passed) 2024-05-17 - Signed by Governor. H.J. 940. [HF2681 Detail]

Download: Iowa-2023-HF2681-Introduced.html

---

House File 2681 - Introduced
HOUSE FILE 2681
BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
(SUCCESSOR TO HSB 740)
A BILL FOR
An Act relating to the use of automated traffic enforcement
systems on the primary road system.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
TLSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns

H.F. 2681
Section 1. NEW SECTION . 321P.1 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
1. “Automated enforcement” means the use of automated
traffic enforcement systems for enforcement of laws regulating
vehicular traffic.
2. “Automated traffic enforcement system” means a system
that operates in conjunction with a speed-measuring device to
produce recorded images of vehicles being operated in violation
of traffic laws.
3. “Department” means the state department of
transportation.
4. “High-crash location” means a location where data
indicates a greater frequency or higher rate of crashes
when compared with other similar locations within the local
jurisdiction, other like jurisdictions, or larger metropolitan
areas.
5. “High-risk location” means a location where the safety of
citizens or law enforcement officers would be at higher risk
through conventional enforcement methods.
6. “Local jurisdiction” means a city or county.
Sec. 2. NEW SECTION . 321P.2 Applicability —— department
approval required —— use by department prohibited.
1. This chapter applies only to local jurisdictions using
or planning to use automated enforcement on the primary road
system.
2. A local jurisdiction shall obtain approval from the
department prior to using an automated traffic enforcement
system on the primary road system.
3. The department shall not own or operate any automated
traffic enforcement system.
4. The department shall not receive any financial payment
from any automated traffic enforcement system owned or operated
by a local jurisdiction.
Sec. 3. NEW SECTION . 321P.3 Use of automated traffic
enforcement systems.
-1-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 1/ 8

H.F. 2681
1. A local jurisdiction shall explore and implement other
engineering and enforcement solutions before considering
automated enforcement.
2. A local jurisdiction shall consider implementing
automated enforcement only in extremely limited situations on
interstate roads.
3. A local jurisdiction shall only consider automated
enforcement in areas with a documented high-crash or high-risk
location in any of the following areas:
a. An area or intersection with a significant history of
crashes which can be attributed to persons exceeding the posted
speed limit.
b. A school zone, as described in section 321.249.
Sec. 4. NEW SECTION . 321P.4 Justification report.
1. A local jurisdiction that intends to implement automated
enforcement shall provide a justification report to the
department by submitting a request and the justification report
to the appropriate district engineer. A licensed, professional
engineer knowledgeable in traffic safety shall sign the
justification report.
2. The justification report must provide all necessary
information and documentation to clearly define the area where
use of automated enforcement is intended, provide evidence
documenting why the area is a high-crash or high-risk location,
and describe the process used to justify the need for automated
enforcement.
3. The justification report must include but is not limited
to all of the following information:
a. Existing traffic speeds, posted speed limits, traffic
volumes, and intersection or roadway geometry, information
ensuring that the existing speed limits are appropriate, and
detailing how such speed limits were established.
b. Applicable crash history, the primary crash types, crash
causes, crash severity, and observed or ascertained traffic
violations. Only crashes attributable to violations of the
-2-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 2/ 8

H.F. 2681
posted speed limit shall be included in the justification
report.
c. A comparison of crash data with other similar locations
within the local jurisdiction, other like jurisdictions, and
larger metropolitan areas.
d. The critical traffic safety issues based on the data
provided pursuant to this subsection and a comprehensive list
of countermeasures that may reduce the critical traffic safety
issues.
e. Solutions or safety countermeasures that have been
implemented, along with those that have been considered but
not implemented, including but not limited to law enforcement
activities, engineering and design changes, and public
education campaigns.
f. Discussions held and actions taken with partnering
agencies that have resources which could aid in the reduction
of crashes attributable to violations of the posted speed
limit.
g. Reasons the local jurisdiction believes automated
enforcement is the best solution to reduce the critical traffic
safety issues.
4. A local jurisdiction intending to implement a mobile
automated traffic enforcement system shall include all of the
following information with the justification report:
a. A description of the mobile automated traffic enforcement
system.
b. The proposed duration of use of a mobile automated
traffic enforcement system at each location and an indication
of where the unit will be physically placed relative to
the highway, including the roadway and its boundaries, such
as curbs, shoulders, medians, and other relevant location
characteristics.
Sec. 5. NEW SECTION . 321P.5 Department review.
1. Within ninety days of receipt of the request and a
completed justification report, the department shall either
-3-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 3/ 8

H.F. 2681
approve or deny specific automated enforcement locations in
the request. The department’s response time may be extended
if the collection of additional data is needed, such as
conducting a speed study. Incomplete justification reports
shall be returned to the local jurisdiction. The department
shall review the request and justification report, evaluate the
process used, and determine if the proposed automated traffic
enforcement system is warranted. If an automated enforcement
request is approved, the department shall prepare an agreement
detailing the approved use of such enforcement which must be
signed by the department and the local jurisdiction.
2. Upon receipt by the department of a request and a
completed justification report from a local jurisdiction, the
department shall include the information on the department’s
internet site.
Sec. 6. NEW SECTION . 321P.6 Systems installed, maintained,
and placed.
1. A local jurisdiction shall install and maintain an
automated traffic enforcement system in a safe manner and place
the system to ensure motorist safety by reducing the chances
of creating a potentially unsafe environment for motorists as
follows:
a. In a location where the system does not impede,
oppose, or interfere with free passage along the primary road
right-of-way.
b. In a location where the system does not create a visual
obstruction to passing motorists.
c. In a manner to avoid creating traffic backups or delays.
2. A local jurisdiction shall not place or park an automated
traffic enforcement system in any of the following locations:
a. On any shoulder or median of any interstate highway.
b. Within fifteen feet of the outside traffic lane of any
interstate highway, unless shielded by a crashworthy barrier.
c. On the outside shoulder of any other primary road for
longer than forty-eight hours unless shielded by a crashworthy
-4-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 4/ 8

H.F. 2681
barrier.
d. Within two feet of the back of the curb of a municipal
extension of any primary road.
e. Within the first one thousand feet of a change in speed
limit to a lower posted speed limit.
3. A local jurisdiction shall not place or operate an
automated traffic enforcement system within the defined limits
of any road work zone, as defined in section 321.1.
Sec. 7. NEW SECTION . 321P.7 Required signs.
1. A local jurisdiction shall post permanent signs in
advance of the locations where automated traffic enforcement
systems are in use to advise drivers that the area is monitored
by an automated traffic enforcement system.
2. A local jurisdiction shall post temporary or permanent
signs advising that vehicle speed is monitored by automated
enforcement in advance of an area monitored by a mobile
automated traffic enforcement system, as agreed to by the
department and the local jurisdiction.
3. A local jurisdiction using an automated traffic
enforcement system is authorized to post permanent signs on
primary access roads entering local jurisdictions that are
under automated enforcement.
4. All signs must be in accordance with the sign manual
adopted by the department.
Sec. 8. NEW SECTION . 321P.8 Enforcement.
1. A local jurisdiction shall use automated enforcement in
conjunction with conventional law enforcement methods, not as a
replacement for law enforcement officer contact.
2. If a local jurisdiction uses a mobile automated traffic
enforcement system, a law enforcement agency shall own the
vehicle equipped with the mobile automated traffic enforcement
system and the vehicle must be marked with official decals and
have an “official” registration plate issued under section
321.19 affixed to the vehicle.
Sec. 9. NEW SECTION . 321P.9 Calibration.
-5-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 5/ 8

H.F. 2681
An automated traffic enforcement system shall be calibrated
by a local law enforcement officer, trained in the use and
calibration of the system, at least quarterly for a fixed
system and prior to being used at any new location for a mobile
system.
Sec. 10. NEW SECTION . 321P.10 Evaluation, reporting, and
reevaluation.
1. A local jurisdiction with active automated enforcement
on a primary road shall evaluate the effectiveness of its use
annually. The evaluation shall do all of the following:
a. Address the reduction of vehicle speeds for those sites
being monitored by automated enforcement.
b. Identify the number and type of crashes at the sites
being monitored, and compare the data for sites to the number
and type of crashes at the sites before automated enforcement
was implemented. The evaluation for a system that monitors an
intersection only requires the data for monitored approaches.
c. Evaluate and document the automated traffic enforcement
system’s effect on reducing the critical traffic safety issues
listed in the justification report.
d. Provide the total number of citations issued for each
calendar year that the automated traffic enforcement system has
been in operation.
e. Certify that the automated traffic enforcement system has
been calibrated in accordance with section 321P.9.
2. A local jurisdiction shall report the annual evaluation
to the department’s office of traffic and safety on or before
May 1 each year, beginning on the first May 1 following a full
calendar year with automated enforcement implemented, and the
report shall be based on performance for the prior year.
3. The department shall utilize information collected
from the annual evaluation reports from local jurisdictions
to assist in evaluating the continued need for such systems
at each location. The continued use of automated enforcement
is contingent on the effectiveness of the system, appropriate
-6-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 6/ 8

H.F. 2681
administration of the system by the local jurisdiction,
continued compliance with this chapter, considering changes
in traffic patterns, infrastructure improvements, and
implementation of other identified safety countermeasures.
4. The department is authorized to require a local
jurisdiction to remove or modify an automated system in a
particular location.
Sec. 11. NEW SECTION . 321P.11 Appeals.
Notwithstanding chapter 17A, a local jurisdiction may
appeal a decision made by the department as part of this
chapter by submitting a written explanation of the issue and
any supporting information to the director of transportation.
Once the director receives the appeal, the director shall have
thirty days to respond. The director’s decision is final
agency action.
Sec. 12. NEW SECTION . 321P.12 Rules.
The department may adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A as
necessary to implement this chapter.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
In 2014, the department of transportation (DOT) adopted
administrative rules authorizing and regulating the use of
automated traffic enforcement (ATE) systems on the primary road
system. After judicial review, the Iowa supreme court ruled
the DOT did not have authority to adopt rules regulating the
use of ATE systems. This bill codifies the previously adopted
DOT rules, other than those relating to the use of ATE systems
monitoring official traffic-control devices.
The bill applies only to automated enforcement used by local
jurisdictions to monitor and enforce excessive speed violations
on the primary road system. The DOT is prohibited from using
automated enforcement or receiving related payments from local
jurisdictions.
Under the bill, a city or county (local jurisdiction)
-7-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 7/ 8

H.F. 2681
seeking to use automated enforcement is required to receive
approval from the DOT. A local jurisdiction is required to
submit a justification report, detailing the need for automated
enforcement based on factors described in the bill. The DOT
must approve or deny a local jurisdiction’s request within 90
days, unless additional time is needed to gather more data or
conduct a speed study. If the DOT approves a request, the
DOT must prepare an agreement which must be signed by the
department and the local jurisdiction.
The bill requires ATE systems to be installed and maintained
in a safe manner and limits the locations on or along a roadway
where the ATE system is permitted to be installed. The ATE
systems must be calibrated quarterly, and if a mobile ATE
system is used, it must be calibrated before each use at a
new location. Local jurisdictions are required to post signs
in advance of locations where ATE systems are used to advise
drivers of such systems.
Each year, a local jurisdiction that uses automated
enforcement must evaluate the effectiveness of the ATE system
and report its findings to the DOT on or before May 1. The
DOT must review the annual reports and determine whether
continued use of automated enforcement is justified. The DOT
is authorized to require a local jurisdiction to remove or
modify an ATE system in a particular location.
A local jurisdiction may appeal a decision made by the
DOT by submitting a written explanation of the issue and any
supporting information to the director of the DOT. Once the
director receives the appeal, the director has 30 days to
respond. The director’s decision is final agency action.
Automated enforcement must be used in conjunction with
conventional law enforcement methods, not as a replacement for
law enforcement officer contact.
-8-
LSB 6358HV (1) 90
th/ns 8/ 8