Traffic Enforcement Cameras
Traffic enforcement cameras are automated devices installed on public roads to monitor and capture instances of traffic violations, including speeding and red-light infractions. These cameras are often equipped with technology to read license plates, facilitating the issuance of tickets and fines through the mail. While proponents argue that such systems enhance road safety and reduce accidents, opponents express concerns over their potential infringement on due process rights, as there is no human witness to the alleged violations. Additionally, critics suggest that the financial motivations behind these systems may overshadow public safety interests, pointing to instances where municipalities generate significant revenue from fines.
Historically, the development of traffic enforcement cameras began in the 1950s, with notable advancements in the decades that followed, including the introduction of photo-radar technology in the U.S. in the 1980s. Currently, the use of these cameras varies significantly across states, with some jurisdictions embracing them while others have enacted bans. Studies indicate mixed outcomes; while some research shows a reduction in specific types of accidents, other studies note an increase in rear-end collisions, sparking further debate about their effectiveness. Overall, traffic enforcement cameras remain a contentious topic, balancing the goals of improving road safety against concerns about fairness and transparency in law enforcement practices.
On this Page
Traffic Enforcement Cameras
Traffic enforcement cameras are devices that can be mounted next to public streets or used by traffic enforcement officers to photograph and detect various types of violations of traffic law, including speeding and traffic signal violations. Automated traffic enforcement cameras can be equipped with devices that allow the camera to read and record license plate numbers on passing vehicles, which can then be used to automatically issue violations, bills for unpaid tolls, or other traffic fines through the mail. The use of traffic enforcement cameras has become controversial due to claims that automated law enforcement violates the principles of due process. Other criticisms involve claims that automated enforcement is motivated by financial gain rather than legitimate public interest.
Brief History
The Dutch company Gatso, run by members of the Gatsonides family, debuted the first device capable of measuring the speed of a passing object in 1958, calling the device a "Gatsometer." In the mid-1960s, Gatso introduced the first automated red-light cameras that could take photos of vehicles that proceeded across an intersection in violation of a red light. The Gatso company was also responsible for the first radar-equipped traffic cameras, introduced in the 1970s.
The United States began using photo-radar enforcement programs in the late 1980s, though this equipment was generally used by police officers to enhance traffic control. In the 1990s, several states began using automated traffic enforcement systems. License plate recognition programs were first instituted in Europe in the 1980s and were gradually integrated into traffic enforcement systems worldwide. License plate recognition uses digital cameras to photograph and then identify vehicles from their license plate images.
Overview
In the United States there are two primary uses for traffic enforcement cameras: to detect violations of red lights at intersections and to identify vehicles traveling over set speed limits. A smaller but growing number of traffic enforcement cameras and other devices are used to monitor the illegal use of "bus zones" and stop sign violations and to record license plate numbers in order to process bills for unpaid tolls.
Red-light cameras are specifically designed to activate when a vehicle crosses an intersection in violation of a red light. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), as of May 2016 twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws permitting some form of red-light camera use, while ten states have prohibited the use of red-light cameras and nineteen states have no current laws pertaining to the technology. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia were actively using red-light cameras in 2016 and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Highway Loss Data Institute estimated that 437 communities used red-light cameras in 2016.
Speed cameras measure the velocity of passing vehicles and record license plate numbers so that citations can be issued to vehicles that violate established speed limits. As of 2016 thirteen states have passed laws that prohibit speed cameras, though some of these states permit the use of speed cameras in certain areas, such as within school zones. Twenty-eight states have no law regarding the technology and the rest officially allow it in some capacity. In 2016 the IIHS estimated that 140 cities and towns in twelve states and the District of Columbia were actively using speed cameras to issue traffic citations.
A 2007 research report submitted to the Transportation Research Board indicated an overall reduction in speeding and a reduction in the frequency of collisions after implementation of traffic enforcement cameras. For instance, a study in San Jose, California, indicated a 15-percent decline in speeding that was more than ten miles over the posted speed limit. Another study in Scottsdale, Arizona, indicated more than a nine-mile-per-hour decline in speed and a reduction in all types of collisions, with the notable exception of rear-end collisions. In 2011, the IIHS compared crash rates in US cities and found that cities using red light cameras had as much as a 24-percent reduction in all types of collisions except for rear-end collisions.
While traffic enforcement cameras reduce right- and left-angle collisions, some studies have shown that rear-end collisions increase due to the propensity for drivers to quickly brake when entering an area patrolled by red-light or speed cameras. A 2014 study in Chicago indicated that traffic cameras reduce injuries by 15 percent for accidents occurring at right angles, but they led to a 22-percent increase in injuries from rear-end collisions. The study indicated a 5-percent overall increase in traffic-related injuries after instituting the camera enforcement program.
Some opponents argue that the use of traffic camera systems has been motivated by revenue rather than safety concerns. The city of Chicago, which has been considered a model for the implementation of urban traffic enforcement cameras, earned $69 million in 2010 from automated traffic citations. Companies like Redflex Traffic Systems and Gatso earn a percentage of the revenues gathered from the automated fines issued to drivers. A study conducted by the consumer advocacy group US PIRG found that these companies, in an effort to maintain high revenues, advocate against changes in the law that would reduce traffic violations.
The duration of yellow lights in a traffic signal has been shown to correlate with the frequency of red-light violations. US PIRG found that, in some cases, traffic camera companies have pressured state governments to reduce the timing of yellow lights, which some argue effectively creates "speed traps" that ensnare drivers with unexpectedly short warning lights and therefore earn more revenues for the states and traffic camera companies. The National Motorists Association (NMA) argues that lengthening yellow lights would be more effective in reducing traffic violations than automated enforcement does.
One prominent case involving corporate influence on state policy occurred in 2010 in the California city of Loma Linda, where the city council attempted to remove red-light cameras but was told by the company providing the technology, Redflex Traffic Systems, that Loma Linda would be liable for $534,558 in early termination penalties. The city council argued that the use of the red-light cameras had not produced a measurable increase in safety. However, the city instituted a one-second increase in the timing of yellow lights across the city, resulting in an 80-percent reduction in left-turn violations and a 92-percent reduction in straight-through traffic violations.
Another source of controversy involving traffic cameras concerns the question of whether automated enforcement is a violation of constitutional rights. In a 2012 article in US News, National Motorists Association president Gary Biller summarized this position with the arguments that traffic cameras do not provide a "certifiable" witness to the alleged violation, thus preventing the defendant with the right to cross-examine his or her accuser. The argument that automated enforcement systems constitute a violation of due process was one of the justifications given in the introduction of Ohio State House Bill 69, which proposed banning the use of speed and red-light cameras in Ohio. Legislation proposing bans on automated traffic cameras have also been proposed, and in some cases accepted, in other states and cities, including several jurisdictions in California.
Other legal arguments against the use of traffic enforcement cameras include the argument that the cameras cannot positively identify the driver of a vehicle and might therefore issue a violation to a person who is not guilty of driving the vehicle that registered the violation. Opponents also argue that representatives of the companies managing traffic enforcement systems are rarely made available in traffic court, thus constituting a further violation of due process laws that guarantee the right to confront an accuser in the case of legal citations or violations.
Bibliography
Biller, Gary. "Red-Light Cameras about Revenue, Not Safety." US News. US News and World Report, 14 May 2012. Web. 9 June 2015.
"Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead." US PIRG. United States Public Interest Research Group, Oct. 2011. PDF file. 9 June 2015.
Dade, Corey. "What’s Driving the Backlash against Traffic Cameras." NPR. Natl. Public Radio, 22 Feb. 2012. Web. 9 Jun 2015.
"History." Gatso USA. Gatso USA, 2015. Web. 9 June 2015.
Kedmey, Dan. "Red Light Cams Linked to Increased Rear-End Collisions in Chicago." Time. Time, 20 Dec. 2014. Web. 9 June 2015.
Ludlow, Randy. "Cities Using Traffic Cameras Would Lose State Funding in House GOP Budget." Dispatch. Columbus Dispatch, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 9 June 2015.
Mallory, Dale. "Traffic Enforcement Cameras Violate Due Process Rights: Ohio Rep. Dale Mallory." Cleveland. Northeast Media Group, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 June 2015.
"Red Light Running." IIHS. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute, n.d. Web. 9 June 2015.