SB 177
Department of Legislative Services
Maryland General Assembly
2020 Session
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
Third Reader - Revised
Senate Bill 177 (Senator Waldstreicher)
Judicial Proceedings Environment and Transportation
Motor Vehicle Administration – Authority to Suspend Registration for Violations
Recorded by Traffic Control Signal Monitoring Systems and Speed Monitoring
Systems – Repeal
This bill repeals the authority of the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) to suspend the
registration of a motor vehicle if the owner (or driver) of the vehicle fails to pay the penalty
assessed for a violation recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system (red light
camera) or a speed monitoring system (speed camera).
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) revenues are not materially affected,
assuming the existing authority would otherwise continue to be used on a very limited
basis. Expenditures are not affected.
Local Effect: To the extent the threat of suspension has encouraged compliance, receipt
of local revenues may be delayed by up to two years until registration renewal.
Expenditures are not materially affected.
Small Business Effect: None.
Analysis
Current Law/Background: For a complete discussion of red light and speed camera
systems in the State, please see Appendix – Automated Enforcement.
Red Light Cameras
Unless the driver of a motor vehicle receives a citation from a police officer at the time of
the violation, the owner or driver of a vehicle recorded by a red light monitoring system
entering an intersection against a red signal in violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law is
subject to a civil penalty of up to $100. Red light camera enforcement applies to a violation
of specified Maryland Vehicle Law requirements applicable to a vehicle approaching a
steady circular red signal or arrow, including (1) stopping at a clearly marked stop line, or
crosswalk if there is no stop line, or intersection if there is no crosswalk and (2) remaining
stopped until a signal allows the vehicle to proceed.
A driver is specifically authorized under the Maryland Vehicle Law to cautiously enter an
intersection to make a right turn (or left turn from a one-way street to another one-way street)
after stopping at a steady red light, unless a sign otherwise prohibits the turn.
Speed Cameras
Unless the driver of a motor vehicle received a citation from a police officer at the time
of the violation, the owner or driver of the vehicle is subject to a civil penalty if the vehicle
is recorded speeding at least 12 miles per hour above the posted speed limit by a
speed monitoring system in violation of specified speed restrictions in the
Maryland Vehicle Law. The maximum fine for a citation issued by a speed monitoring
system operator is $40. However, a local law enforcement or other designated agency
operating the speed monitoring system may mail a warning notice instead of a citation.
State/Local Revenues: MVA advises that, over the past three fiscal years, there have not
been any registrations suspended due to unresolved red light camera violations. However,
there have been a few suspensions for other types of automated enforcement, in particular
for unresolved speed camera violations in Montgomery County.
If a vehicle registration were suspended for an unresolved red light or speed camera
violation, it would be flagged by MVA and – in order to reinstate the registration – the
owner would have to satisfy the violation and pay a $30 administrative flag fee.
Because the suspension authority for these violations is rarely used, MVA advises it does
not anticipate an effect on TTF revenues under the bill. The Department of Legislative
Services (DLS) advises that, even if used, noncompliant vehicle owners would still be
required to resolve any outstanding fines (and the flag fee) in order to renew a vehicle
registration; therefore, TTF revenues could only be delayed by at most two years. For
instance, a vehicle owner who receives a red light or speed camera violation shortly after
registration renewal and does not pay the fine could avoid compliance for nearly two years,
SB 177/ Page 2
as the owner’s registration could no longer be immediately suspended for failure to resolve
the citation.
With regard to local revenue, DLS advises that the deterrent effect of a threat of suspension
may currently enhance compliance in paying fines. If compliance wanes, receipt of fine
revenues for local governments that use red light and speed cameras could be delayed by
up to two years, until vehicle registration renewal. The impact on county collections could
be significant. For example:
 Montgomery County advises it requests suspensions only as a last resort for overdue
fines. The county regularly monitors violators who owe $1,000 or more in total fines
and only then asks MVA to suspend the owner’s vehicle registration. As of
January 2020, the county had more than $19.0 million in outstanding fines. The
county advises the bill would hinder its efforts to collect overdue fines.
 Prince George’s County advises that it issued about 98,400 red light camera
violations in fiscal 2019 and that about 68,900 of those citations were paid. In total,
the county collected about $5.7 million as a result of red light camera violations.
The county further advises that it anticipates an indeterminate revenue loss as a
result of the bill. With regard to speed camera violations, the county collected about
$6.1 million in fiscal 2019. Of that amount, $4.1 million was used for cost recovery,
while $1.9 million remained for public safety-related expenditures.
DLS advises that, while local governments would no longer be able to request a registration
suspension, they could still request that MVA refuse to renew a registration.
Additional Information
Prior Introductions: None.
Designated Cross File: HB 46 (Delegate Carr) - Environment and Transportation.
Information Source(s): Baltimore City; Caroline, Howard, Montgomery, and
Prince George’s counties; Maryland Department of Transportation; Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety; Department of Legislative Services
SB 177/ Page 3
Fiscal Note History: First Reader - January 27, 2020
rh/ljm Third Reader - March 14, 2020
Revised - Amendment(s) - March 14, 2020
Analysis by: Eric F. Pierce Direct Inquiries to:
(410) 946-5510
(301) 970-5510
SB 177/ Page 4
 Appendix – Automated Enforcement
Speed Monitoring Systems
Chapter 15 of 2006 authorized the first use of speed monitoring systems in the State, but it
only applied to highways in school zones and residential districts in Montgomery County.
Since that time, the General Assembly has expanded the authorization several times.
 Chapter 500 of 2009 expanded statewide the authorization for the use of speed
monitoring systems in school zones and also authorized the use of work zone speed
control systems.
 Chapter 474 of 2010 authorized the use of speed monitoring systems in
Prince George’s County on a highway located within the grounds of an institution
of higher education or on nearby highways under certain circumstances.
 Chapter 806 of 2018 authorized Prince George’s County to place one speed camera
at the intersection of Old Fort Road and Maryland Route 210 (Indian Head
Highway), subject to specified requirements. Chapter 586 of 2019 repealed the
limitation on the location of speed cameras that may be placed on Indian Head
Highway and increased (to three) the number of speed cameras that the county (and
local jurisdictions within the county) may use on the highway (presumably only
until the existing authorization terminates September 30, 2023).
Unless the driver of a motor vehicle received a citation from a police officer at the time
of the violation, the owner or driver of the vehicle is subject to a civil penalty if the vehicle
is recorded speeding at least 12 miles per hour above the posted speed limit by a
speed monitoring system in violation of specified speed restrictions in the
Maryland Vehicle Law. The maximum fine for a citation issued by a speed monitoring
system operator is $40. However, a local law enforcement or other designated agency
operating the speed monitoring system may mail a warning notice instead of a citation.
A speed monitoring system may be placed in a school zone for operation between 6:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Before a speed monitoring system may be used in
a local jurisdiction, its use must be authorized by the governing body by ordinance or
resolution adopted after reasonable notice and a public hearing, and its location must be
published on the jurisdiction’s website and in a newspaper of general circulation in the
jurisdiction.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), approximately
150 jurisdictions across the nation use speed cameras. In Maryland, speed cameras are used
SB 177/ Page 5
in six counties and Baltimore City, 40 other jurisdictions, and by the State Highway
Administration (SHA) on a statewide basis for work zones. Exhibit 1 shows local speed
camera usage across the State as of January 2020.
Exhibit 1
Local Speed Monitoring System Enforcement in Maryland
January 2020
Note: represents municipal corporations that operate speed monitoring systems; represents counties
that operate speed monitoring systems. Speed cameras are also operated in highway work zones statewide.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Comptroller’s Office; Department of Legislative Services
From the fines generated by a speed monitoring system, the relevant jurisdiction may
recover the costs of implementing the system and may spend any remaining balance solely
for public safety purposes, including for pedestrian safety programs. However, if the
balance of revenues after cost recovery for any fiscal year is greater than 10% of the
jurisdiction’s total revenues, the excess must be remitted to the Comptroller. As shown in
Exhibit 2, according to data from the Comptroller, as of January 2020, approximately
$204,100 was remitted in fiscal 2019 (with data pending for the City of Seat Pleasant only),
while $226,800 was remitted in fiscal 2018.
SB 177/ Page 6
 Exhibit 2
Local Speed Monitoring Systems Data (Aggregated)
Fiscal 2014-2019
Fiscal Year Fine Revenues System Costs Net Revenues Due to State
2019* $60,258,673 $32,846,505 $27,412,488 $204,144
2018 63,749,052 31,395,278 32,376,854 226,822
2017 54,802,197 30,145,731 24,757,588 -
2016 57,198,345 31,637,019 25,208,963 -
2015 56,966,652 28,794,043 28,175,109 456,006
2014 53,842,875 32,978,310 20,864,564 -
* As of January 2020; data pending for City of Seat Pleasant.
Source: Comptroller’s Office; Department of Legislative Services
Also, in fiscal 2019, the Comptroller reports that 47 (excluding the City of Seat Pleasant)
local jurisdictions generated speed monitoring system fine revenues of about $60.3 million,
of which about $27.4 million (45.5%) was retained by local jurisdictions for public safety
programs after recovery of the costs of implementing the systems. Between fiscal 2018 and
2019, total fine revenues decreased by approximately $3.5 million while implementation
expenditures increased by about $1.5 million. Net revenues retained by local jurisdictions
for public safety decreased by approximately $5.0 million between fiscal 2018 and 2019.
Speed Monitoring System Reform – Chapter 491 of 2014
The General Assembly passed House Bill 929 of 2014 (enacted as Chapter 491) in response
to significant concerns from the public and media scrutiny of speed cameras in
Baltimore City and several other jurisdictions. These concerns centered around
two common criticisms of speed cameras: (1) that technical issues and insufficient review
of recorded images resulted in erroneously generated citations; and (2) that the contracts
with vendors were structured in such a manner as to establish an incentive to generate more
citations and revenues, thereby casting doubt on the integrity or purpose of speed
monitoring programs. Thus, Chapter 491 required jurisdictions to impose new restrictions
and requirements on their contracts with speed monitoring vendors and established
numerous additional requirements and restrictions pertaining to the issuance of citations,
the calibration and self-testing of systems, the review of erroneous citations, and the use
and placement of systems in school zones.
SB 177/ Page 7
Automated Speed Enforcement Efficacy
National and international studies of automated speed enforcement, as well as local
program evaluations, provide some insight into the level of effectiveness of such
enforcement mechanisms. According to IIHS, several studies have documented reductions
in crashes in the vicinities of speed cameras, including crashes that result in an injury or
fatality.
A 2015 study by IIHS of speed camera usage in Montgomery County, Maryland, showed
long-term changes in driver behavior as well as reductions in injuries and deaths.
Montgomery County introduced speed cameras in 2007, and an initial review of the
program by IIHS six months into the program found that the percentage of vehicles going
more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit (which, at that time, was the enforcement
threshold) declined by 70% on roads with speed cameras. The 2015 study showed a
59% reduction in the likelihood of a driver exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 miles
per hour, compared with similar roads in Virginia without speed cameras. The same
comparison showed a 19% reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality
or an incapacitating injury.
Data from the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse shows that there
were 754 fatalities in highway work zones nationwide in 2018, including 10 in Maryland.
The number of work zone fatalities in Maryland in 2018 decreased by four compared
to 2017. Nationally, the number of work zone fatalities decreased by about 55 compared
to 2017.
Traffic Control Signal Monitoring Systems (Red Light Cameras)
Unless the driver of a motor vehicle receives a citation from a police officer at the time of
the violation, the owner or driver of a vehicle recorded by a red light monitoring system
entering an intersection against a red signal in violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law is
subject to a civil penalty of up to $100. Red light camera enforcement applies to a violation
of specified Maryland Vehicle Law requirements applicable to a vehicle approaching a
steady circular red signal or arrow, including (1) stopping at a clearly marked stop line, or
crosswalk if there is no stop line, or intersection if there is no crosswalk and (2) remaining
stopped until a signal allows the vehicle to proceed.
A driver is specifically authorized under the Maryland Vehicle Law to cautiously enter an
intersection to make a right turn (or left turn from a one-way street to another one-way street)
after stopping at a steady red light, unless a sign otherwise prohibits the turn.
According to IIHS, approximately 340 jurisdictions across the nation have red light camera
programs as of January 2020. In Maryland, six counties, Baltimore City, and 22 other
SB 177/ Page 8
jurisdictions use red light cameras. Exhibit 3 shows red light camera usage across the State
as of January 2020.
Exhibit 3
Local Red Light Camera Enforcement in Maryland
January 2020
Note: represents municipal corporations that operate red light camera systems; represents counties
that operate red light camera systems.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Department of Legislative Services
SB 177/ Page 9


Statutes affected:
Text - First - Motor Vehicle Administration - Authority to Suspend Registration for Violations Recorded by Traffic Control Signal Monitoring Systems - Repeal: 21-202 Transportation, 21-202.1 Transportation, 21-202 Transportation
Text - Third - Motor Vehicle Administration – Authority to Suspend Registration for Violations Recorded by Traffic Control Signal Monitoring Systems and Speed Monitoring Systems – Repeal: 21-202 Transportation, 21-202.1 Transportation, 21-202 Transportation, 21-801.1 Transportation, 21-801 Transportation, 21-809 Transportation