And according to the bill's sponsors, any citations written because of the red-light cameras would only be a civil infraction and would not count on a driver's record or against their insurance.

For now.

I sell this kind of stuff.  One might think I have a compelling interest in moving cameras to local governments that want to do "Cop by Proxy".  However, surveillance side of government is getting a little ahead of itself on this.  Its one thing to have cameras that alert operators to accidents or to have cameras that monitor traffic flows for planning, but the possible fourth amendment violations, and the DIRECT right to face one's accuser as afforded in the 6th amendment, has already been decided for cases such as these.  

How does one cross examine a camera? "Was it ME driving that car Mr camera?"  nope..  doesn't work.

And if an officer who reviews the video of an alleged infraction is not present during the infraction, will he simply be accepted at his word that you are guilty? Already, and based on the US Supreme Court case Melendez v Diaz, a forensics case in which analysts were not able to testify unless they used "notice and demand" statutes. Notice and demand statutes allow the prosecution to notify the defendant of the prosecution's intent to use a drug report without additional testimony. If the defendant does not object to the prosecution's use of the report, no confrontation clause violation has occurred.

Thus the signs 'warning' of using the cameras for forensic retrieval.

But you cannot object to the signs unless you know you are being targeted.  And can you object even AFTER?  Based on the ruling, it might be the case. In fact in California, Red light violation  pictures have already been tossed partially based on the Melendez ruling.

"Baker countered that he had attended a 20-hour seminar provided by Redflex Traffic Systems, the for-profit Australian company that runs all aspects of the photo ticketing program for Victorville. Under questioning, Baker had no idea whether the photographs he brought to court had ever been encrypted or compressed. He did not know whether the Redflex technicians who worked on the camera system were certified or qualified in any way. The trial judge found Baker's testimony sufficient and convicted Macias. The three-judge panel disagreed, insisting that Baker's evidence was not sufficient under the law.

"He did not, and could not, attest that the photos or videos were true representations of what they purported to depict because he had no such personal knowledge," the appellate judges wrote. "In short, Deputy Baker failed to provide any of the evidence necessary to lay a foundation for the admission of the photographs or the videotape into evidence... Accordingly, the evidence was inadmissible under the Evidence Code section 1401, and the trial court abused its discretion by admitting it. In the absence of any admissible evidence to support the conviction, the judgment must be reversed."

But that won't stop our legislators from providing the tools to violate our rights.  All in the name of 'safety' of course.

Oh, and maybe a little 'revenue' as promised by proponents, and vendors. Or maybe not so much:"The city received only 14,336.46 in revenue after paying for redflex's services from the funding received from the red-light camera violations.  However if you take staff's time into account the city actually expended 166,968 over these 22 months with no financial return."Doh!  

We've never seen THAT before, right?

And least some Collier County Florida commissioners got it right after finding the dark side of the Red Light Monitoring:

"..  Red light cameras are positioned at 10 county intersections. Ticketing based on images generated by these cameras is civil in nature, notwithstanding that the underlying videoed offense may be criminal. Since the driver of the vehicle can't be identified, tickets are being issued against the owner of the vehicle without proof that the owner was the driver of the vehicle at-the time of offense. Further, statistics have not been presented to support that there is a direct correlation between the use of red light cameras and a reduced number of accidents related to running red lights.

Alternative solutions to reducing accidents related to running lights exist including but not limited to increasing the visibility distance and conspicuity of the traffic light so it is more likely to attract the driver's attention in time for him or her to stop, re-timing lights so drivers will encounter fewer red ones, increasing the duration of the yellow light between the green and the red, adding /  increasing a "clearance" phase to the intersection' s traffic signals during which all directions have a red light. .."

And perhaps such common sense might be engaged by our local governments as well when considering such ill placed public wealth.  In the mean time, we should probably look at the grant processes which will surely be put into play to 'encourage' such implementation however.  These things DO NOT happen because a city or policing government has extra cash laying around.  Expect such plans to emanate from the local COGs or other unaccountable grant writing operatives locally.

They'll find all the money needed for such things.  They always do.

Even though no reductions in red light related crashes are seen afterwards.

And when one of these:

"A local unit of government may appoint 1 or more persons or entities to serve as agent to administer an automated traffic enforcement safety device program and may enter into an agreement with a private agent for the installation, operation, notice processing, and administration and maintenance of automated traffic enforcement safety devices."