Automated Traffic Enforcement

Updated April 2004

By Melissa Savage

Overview

It's rush hour and you're running late. You glance up and notice that the green light just ahead turned yellow. You know that by the time you reach the intersection it will be red. You debate whether you should gun the engine and go for it. You're not alone; thousands of motorists face this dilemma every day. But it's dangerous and risky to run red lights. In fact, red light running-the leading cause of urban crashes-causes more than 200,000 motor vehicle crashes each year resulting in more than 900 deaths. More than half of the deaths are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these types of traffic crashes cause $7 billion each year in medical costs, time off from work, insurance rate increases and property damage.

The National Stop Red Light Running Campaign conducted a study in 1999 in Colorado that found more than 60 percent of licensed drivers surveyed said they had run a red light in the past. The reasons they gave for running red lights were running late and saving time.

In an effort to curb intersection crashes, some communities have turned to automated enforcement. As the number of drivers and vehicle miles traveled continue to increase this technology offers law enforcement agencies the ability to enforce traffic violations without depleting their personnel resources.

This report will provide an overview of camera enforcement technology and use. Action at the federal and state level will be discussed as well as the experiences some states have had with this technology.

Technology

In 1910, Massachusetts began using a device known as the photo speed recorder. This device used a camera, synchronized with a stopwatch, that photographed speeding vehicles. The speed was calculated using mathematics based on the reduction in size of the motor vehicle in the photo. The photo was used in court as evidence and was held admissible by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In fact, the court saw this type of enforcement as more reliable than the "fluctuations of human agencies." More widespread use of camera enforcement technology began in the early 1970s. However use of this technology for the last 30 years has been focused outside of the United States.

Automated Enforcement Definitions

Automated enforcement - Photo radar and red light cameras are often referred to as automated enforcement technology.

Red light cameras - These devices are installed at intersections and are connected to sensors. The sensors are synchronized with the traffic lights and are able to detect vehicles driving through intersections on red lights. The sensors trigger the cameras that record the day, time and place of the violation. The photos are then used to determine the owner of the vehicle and a citation is mailed.

Photo Radar - This term is used to describe radar devices that detect speeders and then triggers cameras. Typically the camera takes two photos, one of the front of the vehicle and one of the back. Additionally, this term may be used to describe the technology used to detect red light runners.

Nearly all automated enforcement systems function the same way. In the case of red light cameras, the camera is connected to the traffic signal system and is able to monitor red, yellow and green phases. Sensors are used to detect the vehicle and its speed. After the light has turned red, a vehicle traveling over the detectors will trigger the camera causing it to take two photographs. One photograph shows the vehicle entering the intersection while the light is red and the second photograph shows the vehicle driving through the intersection on a red light. The cameras are set to photograph vehicles that enter the intersection after the light has turned red. They are not set to photograph vehicles that enter the intersection on a yellow light.

As with most technologies, the abilities of automated enforcement change frequently. New improvements to the systems currently in operation include digital cameras that give law enforcement officers the ability to download the photos via phone-lines without having to develop film. Also, some devices use video-based enforcement instead of photo enforcement. One video-based enforcement device in Vienna, Va., is able to not only detect the red light violation, but also trigger an extension of the red light signal for crossing traffic to help reduce traffic crashes in the intersection.

Automated enforcement of speed violations operate in a similar manner. Typically the camera is connected to a speed measuring device and a computer. The speed measuring device detects speeders and triggers the camera unit. The photos, with the date, time and speed recorded, are then used to determine the vehicle owner and tickets are generated and distributed.

Federal Action

In 1992 NHTSA funded a two-year test of photo radar in New Jersey. Although photo radar was not a new technology, it had been used in only a few communities in California, Arizona and Texas. The grant-funded project was implemented in three phases. The first phase called for advanced warning for motorists through electronic message boards stating that the cameras were in use. The next phase comprised the basic operations of the project including clocking the motorist, photographing, and tracing the vehicle and drivers. The last phase was the enforcement or mailing the tickets.

In 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established the Stop Red Light Running Program. This program was designed as a community safety program. The campaign, still in effect, provides state and city agencies with educational materials designed to assist in the reduction of red light running. This campaign has raised awareness of the dangers of red light running by 60 percent and reduced crashes in some communities by 43 percent.

DaimlerChrysler and the American Trauma Society established a partnership with FHWA in April 1998 to continue the Stop Red Light Running Program. This partnership sponsors the annual National Stop on Red Week and distributes educational materials to communities. More than 200 communities are currently involved in the Stop Red Light Running Program.

In 1995, through a grant-funded program, the FHWA distributed money to five communities to use red light cameras. This program funded projects in Los Angeles, Calif.; Ft. Meade, Fla.; Charleston, S.C.; Howard County, Md.; and Washington, D.C. These programs used 35mm-film as well as video-based technology. Preliminary results from these projects show a reduction in red light crashes.

After 6 months of red light camera citations, two intersections in Howard County, Md., witnessed a decline in violations by 50 percent at one of the intersections and 42 percent at the other intersection.

State Action

In 1990, no jurisdiction in the United States was using photo radar to enforce traffic laws. Today, more than 90 cities and towns throughout the country rely on automated enforcement. City and local governments in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington and the District of Columbia use cameras. In most cases, state legislatures have passed enabling statutes that allow city and local governments to use the cameras. Arizona does not have a specific statute, but cameras are still in use in Phoenix, Tempe and Chandler.

State laws regarding automated enforcement generally establish guidelines for municipal governments. The provisions in these laws generally include allowing enforcement agencies the ability to ticket the vehicle owner by mail. In New York, the law makes registered vehicle owners responsible regardless of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense. Some state laws limit the use of the cameras to certain cities, while other state laws allow their use statewide. New Jersey and Wisconsin prohibit the use of automated enforcement in any situation. The constitutionality of these laws has been challenged in many jurisdictions. All the challenges have been unsuccessful. A judge in a recent case in Washington, D.C., came to the same conclusion and found no constitutional issues with the District of Columbia automated enforcement law.

The city of Anchorage, Alaska, initiated automated speed enforcement without enabling legislation in 1996. The purpose for using an automated system in Anchorage was to catch speeders in school zones, but shortly after the program began it was expanded. Public opposition became elevated and a lawsuit was filed leading the Alaska Supreme Court to rule that state law required the presence of a police officer at the time of violation. The program ended later that year.

In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed legislation that formed a demonstration project for camera enforcement at highway rail crossings. This type of automated enforcement is similar to red light enforcement. The devices are triggered by loops placed in the road that detect motor vehicles driving under or around crossing gate arms. Because the law only allowed for a demonstration project, no citations were generated. Photos and educational letters were sent to the owners of the vehicles.

In Denver Colo., the public works department purchased three devices intended to enforce speed limits in neighborhoods with traffic problems. Instead, the devices were placed on highways. This caused concern from some state legislators who proposed legislation during the 1999 session to significantly restrict the use of these devices. The bill, which was signed into law by the governor, requires cities and towns using photo radar for the purpose of catching red light runners and speeders to post signs when the device is in use. Also, violators may insist on receiving their citation personally from a police officer instead of through the mail.

During the 2003 sessions, legislators in 19 states considered more than 50 bills on this issue. The Maryland legislature approved a bill to allow statewide use of photo radar in school zones and residential areas but the governor vetoed the bill. One reason for the veto was that, according to the Maryland Department of Transportation, there is no data to support the notion that speed cameras will reduce crashes. In Arkansas, a bill to prohibit the use of traffic cameras died in committee. A resolution passed in Hawaii to require the Department of Transportation to conduct a study regarding the feasibility of establishing a red light camera pilot project.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Red light cameras have been shown to reduce red light violations as well as crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently conducted a study in Oxnard, Calif., which showed that red light violations dropped 42 percent after the installation of cameras. Oxnard also witnessed a reduction in violations at intersections without cameras. According to the institute, the fear of a ticket and not the fear of a crash is what prevents people from speeding or running red lights. However, a 1996 study conducted in Richmond, Va., by the Survey Research Laboratory and Center for Urban Development found that 60 percent of people surveyed felt that less than 10 percent of red light runners would be stopped or ticketed.

In New York City, after one year of the photo red light camera project, 175,000 violations were processed. And, in a before-after analysis of one intersection, crashes due to red light running had decreased by approximately 70 percent. In Howard County, Md., red light crashes at one intersection were reduced by almost 50 percent in one year. An analysis in Fairfax, Va., calculated the reduction in red light running violations. After three months of using the cameras a 7 percent reduction in violations was reported. After a year this figure jumped to 44 percent.

Scottsdale, Arizona began issuing tickets in January 1997 for speeding. Collisions at locations with speed cameras decreased 20 percent from 1996-97. During this time period, total collisions in Scottsdale decreased by only 3 percent. In the District of Columbia, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety measured travel speeds on 7 neighborhood streets before photo radar was deployed and again at the same sites 6 months after deployment. At all of the sites, the proportion of motorists going fast enough to warrant a ticket went down. The reductions ranged from 38 to 89 percent. At the same time, the proportion of motorists going more than 10 mph faster than the speed limit in Baltimore, Maryland-where photo radar is not being used-stayed the same or increased slightly.

Although these statistics are very impressive, some individuals and organizations feel that the use of automated enforcement is a violation of privacy. For example, the National Motorist Association (NMA) has many concerns regarding the use of this technology. The NMA feels that the notification of defendants via first class mail is inadequate since there is no "reasonable guarantee that the person whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter." Further some feel that it is difficult, if not impossible, to positively identify the driver of the motor vehicle in question. The NMA is concerned with what it sees as an abuse of power and what some refer to as "big brother."

Conclusion

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 200,000 motor vehicle crashes are caused by red light runners and several more crashes each year come as a result of speed. Many cities and other local governments are feeling a drain on resources and are often unable to effectively enforce some traffic laws. Through the use of automated enforcement, cities and communities are able to enforce laws that help their roads remain safe without diverting law enforcement resources from other areas. However, some individuals see this type of enforcement as an invasion of privacy. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation regarding city and local government use of automated enforcement. Each year several states consider legislation to establish new automated enforcement programs and some to further restrict and regulate current automated enforcement programs.

State Policies Regarding Use of Traffic Cameras

State

Statute Cite

Policy

Arizona

No specific statute

Several city governments use cameras to enforce speed laws and red light violations.

California

§21455.5 &21455.6

Establishes conditions for the use of red light cameras and highway-rail crossing cameras by law enforcement agencies.

Colorado

§42-4-110.5

Authorizes the use of photo radar to catch red light runners and speeders. Amended in 1999 to require localities using the cameras to post signs when the radar is in use. Additionally, violators may insist on being personally served their tickets by law enforcement officers instead of through the mail.

Delaware

§4101 Title 21

Authorizes a red light camera program throughout the state.

District of Columbia

§ 40-751

Authorizes an automated traffic enforcement program in the District of Columbia.

Illinois

§625 ILCS 5/1-105.5

Authorizes the use of red light cameras in municipalities with a population of 1 million or more.

Maryland

§21-202.1

Authorizes the use of red light cameras.

Nevada

§484.910

Prohibits use of camera equipment unless it is held by an officer or installed in a law enforcement vehicle or facility.

New Jersey

§39:4-103.1

Prohibits the use of camera radar by law enforcement officers or agencies.

New York

V&T

S1111-a

Authorizes cities with populations of more than 1 million to operate demonstration projects with a maximum of 50 intersections.

North Carolina

§160A-300

Authorizes certain cities to operate a red light camera program.

Ohio

No specific statute

Red light cameras authorized by ordinance in Toledo and Dayton.

Oregon

§810.438 ORS

Authorizes the use of photo radar in specific jurisdictions to detect speed violations. Allows use of red light cameras in cities with populations exceeding 30,000.

Utah

§41-6-52.5

Limits the use of camera enforcement to school zones, areas with speed limit of 30 mph or less, when a police officer is present, when signs are posted giving notice to motorists of camera use, and when the citation is accompanied by the photograph produced by the camera radar.

Tennessee

No specific statute

Red light cameras authorized by ordinance in Germantown.

Virginia

§ 46.2-833.01

Authorizes certain cities to use traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than 25 intersections. Current law expires July 1, 2005.

Washington

No specific statute

In 1999, the Washington legislature included four red light running projects in a pilot program within the annual budget bill.

Wisconsin

§349.02(3)

(a) & (b)

Prohibits the use of photo radar by law enforcement officers.

Source: NCSL and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2003.

Contacts for further information:

Melissa Savage (303) 364-7700

Links:

Federal Highway Administration
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Motorists Association

Transportation Reviews page

Visitor counts for this page.