Speed cameras in San Jose and Oakland? Lawmakers try for the fourth time to get tech on roads.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the bill would be a violation of privacy

Drivers with lead feet in San Jose and Oakland may no longer see police lights flashing in their rearview mirrors if a landmark legislative bill gets the green light. Instead, they’ll get a speeding ticket in their mailbox.

The roadway bill — which the state legislature could consider by the end of the month — would bring automated speed cameras to San Francisco and the two Bay Area cities, marking the first time the technology is deployed in California. Cities claim the cameras can efficiently combat the rising number of traffic fatalities and decrease the chances of a bad encounter between motorists and law enforcement. Civil liberties groups, however, have raised serious privacy concerns about the cameras.

If approved, AB 645 would add the first of about three dozen cameras in San Jose’s school zones and high-risk intersections starting next year. The law would require cities to send warning notices to residents during the first 60 days of their installation — and publicly map the cameras’ locations. In Oakland, 18 cameras would be scattered throughout the city.

The cameras would take photos of offending license plates when cars are moving 11 miles per hour over the road’s speed limit.

Maria Hernandez, whose mother, Maria Marcelo, a beloved community leader, was killed in December,  supports the measure. Marcelo was the city’s 61st traffic fatality in 2022.

“I fully think these cameras can help support us,” Hernandez said through tears at a news conference on Wednesday. “Just knowing you are being watched creates more control for people who are thinking that it’s just a faster way home.”

In addition to the Bay Area cities, Los Angeles, Glendale and Long Beach are included in the bill authored by Assemblymembers Laura Friedman, Miguel Santiago and Phil Ting. The cameras are already used across the country, including in West Coast cities in Oregon and Washington, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for traffic safety. According to a 2020 study by the California State Transportation Agency, the technology has been linked to a significant decrease in car speeds — as well as lowering the chances of a crash resulting in injury or death.

So far, efforts to get speed cameras onto the Golden State’s roadways have faced major roadblocks. Since 2017, Friedman and former Assemblymember David Chiu have unsuccessfully tried to pass three separate laws to install the technology — but none have ever reached the floor for a vote.

In San Jose, there’s support this time around from the local police union, which has traditionally opposed the cameras over fears it would replace law enforcement jobs, Mayor Matt Mahan noted. On Wednesday, San Jose Police Officers’ Association President Sean Pritchard even appeared alongside Mahan at the afternoon news conference.

“Most people won’t think of the Police Officers’ Association as someone who is going to go out there and advocate for the community,” Pritchard said. “I’m here to express it is the exact opposite. We simply need to get the message out to slow down in our city. We’ve lost way too many lives.”

The mayor has also argued that AB645 could help alleviate the pressure on the low staffing the police department currently faces.

Statistics show traffic fatalities in San Jose steadily rising. In 2018 there were 52 deaths, while last year that number jumped to 65. Of the 286 fatalities over the five-year period — data which includes pedestrians, car drivers or passengers, bicyclists and motorcyclists — a third of the deadly incidents involved speeding automobiles, according to city officials. In Oakland, the city is facing a similarly stubborn situation, with traffic fatalities increasing from 26 in 2019 to 36 this past year.

But for privacy advocates, the use of speed cameras raises serious concerns.

The American Civil Liberties Union has come out against AB645, claiming a high likelihood of the data being misused by local governments. Instead of speed cameras, the ACLU is advocating for more roundabouts and speed bumps to prevent more traffic deaths.

“The only way to protect against the surveillance information being stored indefinitely or stored improperly is not to have it happen in the first place,” said the ACLU’s California Action lobbyist Becca Cramer-Mowder. The group sued and later settled with Marin County last year after accusing officials there of sharing automated license plate reader data with federal and out-of-state agencies.

As for storing the images, AB645 calls for local municipalities to create their own rules around data retention. San Jose’s mayor said Wednesday that the license plate data would be stored for up to five days — and if there is an investigation into the driver’s conduct, that would increase to 60.