Clark County Sheriff Kevin McMahill said about 160 people are killed on roadways in Clark County every year, three times the number who died in the Route 91 mass shooting on the Strip in 2017.
He said he was surprised to be testifying in support of a bill at the Legislature, but he said he is “sick and tired of people dying on our roadways because of the bad behavior of other drivers.”
The sheriff spoke Monday afternoon during a Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure hearing in support of Senate Bill 415, which would allow the installation of traffic cameras in areas prone to crashes.
Under current law, the government cannot use photographic, video or digital equipment to gather evidence to issue a traffic citation unless the equipment is a recording device worn by the officer or is installed within a facility of a law enforcement agency.
Proponents of the legislation say traffic cameras are necessary to reduce speeding in Nevada, where 3,535 people have died on roadways in the last decade, according to Andrew Bennett, chair of the Nevada Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety.
Attempts to implement traffic cameras has been a long and unsuccessful effort in Nevada, with lawmakers killing similar bills in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2019. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said while they understand the need to improve traffic safety, they have taken issue with privacy, where the revenue would go and where the data would be stored.
In a hearing last week on Assembly Bill 402, which seeks to allow the installation of automated traffic enforcement systems in construction zones, opponents repeated those concerns, while supporters highlighted the need to improve safety of construction workers. Monday’s hearing was no different, with a wide array of testimony in both support and opposition. Clark County Commissioner Michael Naft joined McMahill in testifying in support, while the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the Clark County Public Defenders Office testified against.
Nevada legislators expressed their fair share of concerns, though some indicated they would support it with certain amendments. If it does make it through the Legislature, Gov. Joe Lombardo has indicated he would support it.
What the bill entails
SB415 — sponsored by the Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure after a request was put forward by the Nevada Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety — would allow local jurisdictions to authorize the installation of automated traffic enforcement systems in areas with a high rate of crashes and where traditional traffic enforcement methods have failed.
The full program would be implemented Jan. 1, 2026, Bennett said. Local jurisdictions that implement the use of cameras would be required to implement a 60-day public awareness campaign before any infractions are issued, Bennett said.
A violation would result in a civil infraction that would not impact the driver’s record or license status, Bennett said.
The maximum civil penalty would be $100, and people would have 90 days to respond to the infraction, according to Bennett. They can contest the infraction online, in person or through the mail. In lieu of a payment, they could also do community service, Bennett said.
If the vehicle’s registered owner was not the one who was driving at the time of the violation, there is an affidavit process they can go through, he said.
A police officer or qualified government employee would be required to review citations before they are issued, and the citation must be sent within 21 business days after the incident.
Through an amendment, the bill would prohibit profit-sharing with the camera vendor, Bennett said. The funds received from the infractions would cover the cost of the program, and any additional funds would be used for engineering improvements, Bennett said.
The bill would also prohibit any data collected to be shared with immigration officials, Bennett said.
Reducing crashes vs. government overreach
The National Transportation Safety Board recommended in a 2017 study to allow for the use of automatic speed enforcement systems and have found that they reduce crashes where they are used, according to Tom Chapman with the National Transportation Safety Board.
“When drivers believe that existing traffic laws are being strictly enforced, they have been shown to modify their behavior,” Chapman said.
Thirty-three states allow the use of the technology, Bennett said.
McMahill argued that while people say traffic cameras infringe on privacy, that doesn’t “bear any weight anymore,” because intersections have RTC cameras monitoring traffic and license plate readers deployed by businesses.
Opponents of the bill took issue with a lack of oversight and accountability in the program, and concerns of government overreach with heightened surveillance of people.
They expressed concerns about any fees that would be attached to the ticket that would be used by the government.
Nick Shepack, the Nevada state director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, pointed to several municipalities that have banned speed cameras or ended programs due to predatory contracts. In Tuskegee, Alabama, tickets had to be reissued because machines are faulty, Shepack said.
In Washington, D.C., the mayor had said the speed cameras were for public safety, but when the city reached a budget shortfall, the tickets were increased, Shepack said.
“It is very difficult for this money to not become addictive to local governments, especially if you hit hard economic times,” Shepack said.
Other opponents, including the ACLU, highlighted concerns about government overreach, mass data collection and potential misuse of the data. They were concerned about where the data will be stored and who has access to the data from the cameras.
“They’re owned by a private company. You cannot simply legislate ‘no data sharing’ and assume it’ll be true,” he said.
Contact Jessica Hill at