Pennsylvania may soon ticket work-zone red-light runners by camera - but lawmakers want those $200 fines kept out of auto insurance rating entirely.
That is the part of House Bill 2628 worth your attention. The bill, nicknamed "Josh's Law," was introduced in the state House on June 10, 2026 by Representatives Kozak, Joshua Kail, Brenda Pugh and Andrew Kuzma, and was referred to the Transportation Committee two days later. It would add a new section to Pennsylvania's vehicle code and let the state, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and local municipalities set up camera systems in highway work zones to catch drivers who run a red signal.
Here is what those systems are. The bill defines a "mobile work zone safety enforcement system" as a camera setup that is temporarily installed in a work zone and equipped with a traffic signal, a gate, and at least one camera. It produces recorded video and two or more still images of a vehicle breaking the rule. The rule in question is running the steady red signal at that work-zone light.
Now to the line that matters for carriers. A driver caught on camera faces a $200 fine. But the bill says that penalty may not "be deemed a criminal conviction," may not be made part of the driver's operating record or points, may not "be the subject of merit rating for insurance purposes," and may not "authorize imposition of surcharge points in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage." Read those last two together and the message is plain: no surcharge, no rating signal, nothing an auto insurer can price on.
There is a limit on when the fine even applies. The bill says it is not authorized at any time a work-zone lane "is not shared by opposing travel of vehicular traffic." In other words, the ticket only lands in that alternating, single-lane setup where one direction waits while the other moves.
Liability sits with the registered owner of the vehicle, and a lessee of a leased vehicle counts as the owner. Owners are not without options. The bill lays out defenses: the car was reported stolen before the violation, the person named was not the owner at the time, the system was not in compliance, or the owner was not the driver.
On the money side, $50 of each fine goes to the police department that reviewed the violation, and the rest is directed toward work-zone and highway safety. Owners can pay, request a hearing, or appeal.
So why should the insurance industry care about a traffic-camera bill? Because it answers, in the statute itself, the question carriers usually fight over later - whether a new kind of camera ticket can flow into rating. Pennsylvania's answer here is written in as a flat no.
One caution: this is a proposal, not law. The bill has been referred to committee, has not passed either chamber, and has not been enacted. If it does become law, it would take effect 120 days afterward.
