Not just more fines - but also an infringement on drivers' rights: behind the dramatic change in speed cameras

Two changes in the field of traffic that occurred this week are expected to significantly harm the public of drivers. The first is the announcement by the Traffic Division regarding the change in the enforcement threshold of speed cameras, so that drivers will be able to receive a fine even for a very small deviation from the permitted speed.

The second change is the Administrative Traffic Violations Law that fully entered into force this week, which replaced the choice-of-trial offenses. The meaning: if in the past drivers could decide to be tried instead of paying a fine, now the procedure has become an administrative procedure and not a criminal one.

This means that following these changes, drivers are more exposed to the deduction of points on their license and even to revocation, without the high evidentiary threshold required for prosecution in criminal proceedings standing by the drivers' side - beyond a reasonable doubt, and the examination of facts and claims by a judge.

The change in enforcement thresholds, as announced by the Traffic Division, will enter into force in the coming days, and its meaning is that instead of a uniform threshold for operating the A-3 type stationary speed cameras, each camera will operate according to the characteristics of the road and the level of risk on it. Thus, in some places, drivers will receive a fine even for a small deviation from the permitted speed, for example, a fine for a deviation of 10 km/h more than permitted on cameras where until now they enforced the threshold only from a deviation of 30 km/h from the permitted speed, while on other roads the enforcement threshold may actually rise. Drivers will not know in advance on which cameras the police are stricter or more lenient in the enforcement threshold.

"I think that following this law and the change in the enforcement thresholds of the speed cameras, there will be around 30% disqualified drivers here," said Attorney Kfir Dor, an expert in traffic law who also serves as chairman of the National Traffic Committee of the Bar Association. "The Licensing Authority will not be able to handle the amount of disqualified drivers and the courses that people will have to take, and all this because the Israel Police is lowering the enforcement thresholds on the speed cameras."

"The first to be harmed are the public drivers - those who are on the road for hours: taxi drivers, bus drivers, haulers, heavy vehicle drivers, hazardous materials drivers," added Dor. "For all of these, it is enough that they have one conviction for a speeding offense - and their license will be revoked. The result is that there will be no public drivers. We will have to import drivers from India or China, those who will convert their license or who will be here with a foreign license to which the point system does not apply."

Dor further explained that the change in the law of turning choice-of-trial offenses from a criminal procedure to an administrative procedure harms drivers. "Defense claims that stood by drivers in the criminal procedure will no longer be able to be used by them, for example, a claim that the enforcement device does not enjoy a presumption of reliability," he said.

Dor used such a claim in a prominent case where he represented together with Attorney Tomer Ganon, when he managed to acquit 21 drivers of traffic offenses after the court determined that the reliability of the speed cameras that documented them was not proven. The meaning of the change in the law is that this decision, and the rulings of the District Court that the 'Dvora' devices (radar devices installed on police vehicles that identify the speed of vehicles) are 'dead', because these offenses have moved to an administrative procedure, and therefore the burden of proof is administrative. "It is impossible to raise claims of reasonable doubt in such a procedure," he explained.

Elon Oron, an attorney for traffic matters who filed a petition against the law, added: "It's like putting a note in the Western Wall, an administrative procedure means that if the policeman wrote something, it means it's true. There is no possibility to really defend, to investigate the policeman who wrote the report. The entire procedure is conducted in writing."

In the petition filed by Attorney Oron, he emphasized that the new law created a bypass route to the court - in which the citizen is in an inherent evidentiary inferiority. Thus, the state turned the presumption of innocence of the drivers into a presumption of administrative propriety of the police. While until today the police had to meet a high burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, today all that is required is that the inspector defined in the law has a reasonable basis to assume that the violation was committed.

The inquiry procedure from now on will be conducted not by a judge in offenses that until today were defined as choice-of-trial, such as speeding offenses, but by a dayan (adjudicator). The procedure will be carried out digitally and mainly in writing, without hearing witnesses and while significantly reducing the driver's right to cross-examine the person who wrote the report. "Therefore this is a euphemism," said Attorney Oron. "They called the offense a violation and then there are no rights to defend, but the sanction is the same sanction."

In the administrative tribunal, explained Attorney Dor, the police have an inherent advantage - the presumption of propriety. In practice, a policeman can write whatever he wants in the report, because he, and the report, enjoy the presumption of propriety. Also in terms of the procedure, the dayan can decide that he will hold a hearing in the presence of the parties, but it is like arguments in the High Court of Justice, without cross-examinations, because it is an administrative procedure. One also needs to submit affidavits. "Now the Bedouin in the Negev and the 80+ year old driver will know how to submit an affidavit? They will be forced to hire an attorney," he said.

This bill was passed under the leadership of the current government, and its goal was mainly to reduce the load on the traffic courts. What is the result? They moved the load from one place to another. "Once, when you would file a request to be tried, the case would often end in the first hearing with a plea bargain and that's it," said Attorney Dor.

Those who are expected to be mainly harmed by these changes, the attorneys explained, are as mentioned the public drivers - taxi drivers, bus drivers, and commercial trucks. This is because from now on the deduction of points will be through an administrative procedure of administrative violations, and thus drivers will be able to lose their license and their livelihood. This is without being given the opportunity to prove their innocence in the evidentiary standard required regarding the infringement of a fundamental right such as that of freedom of occupation.

And indeed, it will be possible to appeal the decision of the administrative tribunal to the traffic court - but it too will examine the decision in the administrative aspect, if there was an error in the discretion of the dayan, and will not check the facts of the case.

We turned to the police with a request for a response to the claim that the combination of the change it announced regarding the enforcement thresholds of the speed cameras together with the law that revolutionizes traffic law - harms drivers. The police did not address the claim on its merits and told us in response: "Adjusting the enforcement thresholds is another step in the fight against road fatalities and a move intended to adapt enforcement to the changing reality on the roads, while focusing on places where there is an increased danger to road users."