SB26-152 makes a series of changes to Colorado law governing automated vehicle identification systems (AVIS), which are used for civil traffic enforcement such as speeding and red-light violations. The bill clarifies that AVIS do not include automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs), and it expressly limits the act to AVIS and civil traffic enforcement. It also revises notice, signage, warning, and reporting requirements for jurisdictions that deploy these systems, including expanded public notice through websites and social media, stronger signage requirements, and annual public reporting of citations and revenue from AVIS corridors.
The bill creates a formal process for a registered vehicle owner to avoid liability for an AVIS notice of violation by submitting an affidavit and supporting documentation showing the owner was not the driver because the vehicle was sold, stolen, rented, leased, transferred after death, or otherwise subject to another listed exception. It also limits AVIS enforcement when speed limits are temporarily lowered, generally allowing citations only when the detected speed exceeds the regular posted limit, with an exception for construction and maintenance zones. In addition, the bill adjusts the penalty structure for different speeding tiers, traffic-signal violations, and school-bus violations, and it increases certain civil penalties beginning January 1, 2035.
The bill also changes how governments may contract for AVIS equipment and services. It prohibits vendors from being paid a share of fines or revenue generated by citations and requires compensation to be based on the value of equipment and services, with payment structured as a flat monthly or hourly rate and without incentives tied to citation volume or revenue. These provisions are intended to reduce financial incentives for citation-driven enforcement and to separate vendor compensation from enforcement outcomes.
Overall, the bill’s impact is to tighten procedural safeguards and transparency around automated traffic enforcement while preserving and, in some cases, expanding the use of AVIS by state and local governments. It affects Colorado Revised Statutes section 42-4-110.5 and related traffic-penalty provisions, and it imposes new obligations on state agencies, counties, municipalities, vendors, and registered vehicle owners who receive AVIS notices. The bill also includes future penalty increases beginning in 2035 and applies prospectively to conduct and contracts entered into or renewed on or after the effective date.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and its final passage appears to be supportive of automated enforcement as a traffic-safety tool, but with stronger due-process protections and limits on vendor profit incentives. The main points of contention are likely the balance between road safety and civil-liberties concerns, especially around notice, owner liability, and the use of cameras for enforcement. Another likely area of debate is the bill’s treatment of school zones, construction zones, and temporary speed-limit reductions, where penalties are higher or enforcement is more constrained depending on the circumstance.
SB26-152 amends Colorado’s AVIS statute, C.R.S. 42-4-110.5, and related penalty provisions to change how automated traffic enforcement may be noticed, operated, and penalized. It adds a statutory definition excluding ALPR systems from AVIS, expands public notice and signage requirements, creates an affidavit-based process for owners to contest liability, limits citations in temporary speed-limit situations, revises penalty tiers for speeding and other violations, and restricts vendor compensation to non-citation-based structures such as flat fees. It also phases in higher civil penalties beginning January 1, 2035, and applies to future conduct and contracts after the effective date.
The overall sentiment appears mixed but generally favorable toward a regulated use of automated traffic enforcement. The bill’s structure suggests lawmakers wanted to preserve AVIS as an enforcement tool while addressing concerns about transparency, fairness, and vendor incentives. Its final enactment indicates enough support to pass and be signed, but the detailed restrictions and future penalty changes suggest the measure was designed to respond to criticism about automated enforcement practices.
The most notable contention centers on whether AVIS should be used primarily as a safety tool or whether it creates unfair or overly automated civil penalties. Critics are likely to focus on owner liability when the driver is unknown, the adequacy of notice and signage, and the fairness of issuing citations during temporary speed-limit changes. Supporters of stricter enforcement are likely to favor the bill’s higher penalties in school zones, construction zones, and for serious speeding or school-bus violations. A separate point of contention is vendor compensation: the bill prohibits citation-based revenue sharing and requires flat-fee or value-based payment, reflecting concern that vendors should not have a financial incentive to increase citations.