Vehicle travel has increased dramatically in recent years, but traffic law enforcement resources have not kept pace. Between 1995 and 2005, the estimated number of vehicle-miles traveled in the U.S. increased by 23%, but the number of municipal law enforcement officers grew by 12%. The use of camera technology to enforce traffic laws frees police to handle other pressing issues.
Speed, signal or other violations trigger carefully placed cameras to record images of the violation. If an independent review of the images confirms the violation, a citation is mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner. Laws in the U.S. vary with respect to the images that are taken and the consequences of receiving a camera citation. This story reviews the research on automated enforcement, briefly describes state laws authorizing it and addresses legal challenges that have been brought against automated enforcement.
Clicking your wheels
Developed in the 1960s, camera enforcement technology has been used for years in Canada, Australia and Europe. Other than a pilot study, the first use of automated enforcement in the U.S. was in Paradise Valley, Ariz., where speed cameras were introduced in 1988, and New York City was the first to use red-light cameras beginning in 1991. At this writing, 12 states and the District of Columbia are using red-light and speed cameras; 10 states are using red-light cameras only; one state is using speed cameras only. Cameras also are being used to enforce rail-crossing signals and speeding in school and construction zones.
Enforcement cameras are aimed at vehicle tags and, in some states, drivers and tags. Unlike surveillance cameras, they do not indiscriminately record everything in view. Systems using video cameras do not begin recording until a violation has occurred, and systems using still photographs do not take a picture in the absence of a violation. Red-light cameras are triggered by sensors when a driver enters the intersection against the light. Speed cameras are triggered when a driver’s speed, measured by radar, laser or sensors embedded in the pavement, exceeds a specified speed, usually well above the speed limit. Jurisdictions choose the speed that activates the camera. Similarly, jurisdictions often allow some time after the beginning of the red cycle before the camera can be activated. This ensures that only unambiguous violations are photographed. In most jurisdictions, offenses identified through automated enforcement are civil and a fine is the only consequence. Points are not assessed and the offense does not go on the driver’s record nor is reported to insurers. Those issued a citation have the right to a hearing to contest the citation.
For decades, research has shown that to deter people from committing traffic offenses, there must be consistently high levels of very visible enforcement. The most important variable in creating deterrence is the public’s estimation of the likelihood of being caught. Two other critical variables are the speed and certainty with which a penalty is imposed. This deterrence model suggests that automated enforcement should be effective, because it vastly increases the likelihood of a violation resulting in a citation; it is very visible because of publicity and signs warning drivers of its presence; and issuance of the citation and imposition of the penalty are prompt and certain.
Reduced role
In Fairfax, Va., and Oxnard, Calif., camera enforcement reduced red-light violations by about 40%. Violation reductions carried over to signalized intersections without cameras, indicating widespread changes in driver behavior. In Philadelphia, when the yellow phase was increased, red-light violations were reduced by 36%. The addition of red-light cameras further reduced red-light violations by 96%.
In Oxnard, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red-light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29%. Front-into-side collisions—often caused by red-light running—were reduced by 32% overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68%. A review of international red-light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red-light violations by 40-50% and reduce injury crashes by 25-30%.
A review of 10 controlled before-and-after studies of red-light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore and the U.S. used meta-analysis techniques. The authors estimated a 16% reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24% reduction in right-angle crashes.
Six months after implementation of speed cameras on residential streets and school zones in Montgomery County, Md., in 2007, the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by about 70%. A nine-month pilot program using fixed speed cameras on a busy urban freeway in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 2006 was associated with up to a 95% decrease in the odds that drivers would travel more than 10 mph above the posted 65-mph speed limit. In 2001, the proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit declined 82% within six months of introduction of speed cameras in the District of Columbia.
A 2005 review analyzed data from 14 studies and found crash reductions in the immediate vicinity of speed camera sites, ranging from 5-69% for all crashes, 12-65% for injury crashes and 17-71% for fatal crashes. A 2006 analysis of data from 21 studies found reductions ranging from 14-72% for all crashes, 8-46% for injury crashes and 40-45% for crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries. A 2007 review of 13 published studies reported injury crash reductions of 20-25% for fixed speed cameras and 21-51% for mobile speed cameras.
Survey research shows the public favors camera enforcement. Support for speed camera enforcement has ranged from 51 to 77% of survey respondents. A larger majority of the public supports red-light cameras. Surveys in 2000 and 2002 reported that more than 75% of drivers supported red-light camera enforcement.
Court certified
A state law is not always necessary for camera enforcement. As of April 2008, local jurisdictions in 12 states use camera enforcement under home rule authority. Seventeen states have laws authorizing it. Specifics for each law on the features described below are summarized on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s website (www.iihs.org/laws/automated_enforcement.aspx). Automated enforcement laws indicate where, if not throughout the state, camera enforcement is authorized. Typically, if it is not authorized throughout the state it is restricted to the largest cities. In addition, laws specify which offenses may be enforced with cameras and under what conditions. The most common offense for which camera enforcement is permitted is red-light running, but laws do not have to limit automated enforcement to specified traffic offenses.
Laws indicate whether the citation will be issued to the vehicle’s registered owner or to the driver. Where the driver is cited, the image will include the driver and no citation will be issued if an examination of motor vehicle records indicates the registered owner may not be the driver. Typically, the registered owner is issued the citation and if the owner was not the driver, he or she is required to name the driver. In some states, a written assertion that the owner was not the driver is sufficient to dismiss the citation.
Laws specify the images that may be taken and how long they are kept (generally until the case is concluded and all appeals are exhausted). Privacy provisions restrict how the images can be used, often providing that they may not be used for any purpose other than in a prosecution for the traffic offense cited. The most common statutory defenses are that the owner was not the driver; that the vehicle had been stolen; and that it was a rental vehicle.
A critical aspect of automated enforcement laws that influences the outcome of legal challenges is that in most states offenses enforced using cameras are classified as minor infractions or civil offenses result only in a fine. The offense that does not go on the driver’s record is not reported to insurers and does not result in points. The most notable exception is California, where an automated enforcement citation is treated exactly as if it were an officer-issued citation. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in more litigation in California than in other states with automated enforcement.
Although automated enforcement has been challenged on numerous grounds, a one-sentence summary is possible: No appellate court has found an insurmountable constitutional or other infirmity that would prevent the use of automated enforcement. A number of issues were raised in Van Harken v. City of Chicago. The Van Harken court found that it was not a violation of due process to decriminalize offenses cited through automated enforcement. The court noted, “nothing in the due process clause forbids the reclassification of criminal offenses as civil violations.” When the issue was raised in North Carolina and Ohio, the courts there agreed.
The adequacy of the procedures used in automated enforcement has been challenged.
To appreciate the courts’ decisions in this area, it is important to understand a few basic principles about the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. The due process clause provides that the government cannot take your property or liberty without first affording you due process of the law. However, due process is not an all-or-nothing standard. The process a person is due is determined by the nature of the interest at issue. Due process can be thought of as a spectrum with monetary fines at one end of the spectrum and the death penalty at the other end. The amount of procedural protection that is due is commensurate with the interest at stake. This, coupled with what we know about the deterrence model (that the significant, highly visible enforcement, not the severity of the sanction, is the most critical factor) is why automated enforcement penalties are relatively low. All automated enforcement laws provide for a hearing before a fine is imposed and for an appeal.
Typically, jurisdictions hire contractors to perform some of the functions involved in automated enforcement (providing the cameras; initially reviewing the images to assure only clear images of unambiguous offenses are referred to the police for the final decision to cite or not; and reviewing motor vehicle records to identify the registered owner). Consequently, contractor-related issues have been litigated. Programs have to be closely supervised by public servants, and jurisdictions must be careful not to delegate too much authority to the contractor. Also, the contractor must be paid in such a way that it has no financial interest in whether or not a citation is issued. It is imperative not just for legal reasons but for political reasons that the public know for certain that the contractor has no role in determining the “ticket/no ticket” threshold.
Opponents of automated enforcement argue that the presumption that the registered owner is the driver is illegal. That argument has consistently been rejected by courts. Here again, the civil nature of the offense helps courts uphold the presumption. The Supreme Court of Oregon stated, “[t]he Due Process Clause poses no impediment to shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant on one element of a traffic violation.”
The claim that automated enforcement violates privacy rights is common in the court of public opinion, but not so common in legal courts. Driving is a regulated activity that occurs in public in plain sight. It stretches the Constitution to the breaking point to suggest that there is a right to privacy in that which occurs in public. The state wins this one not because violators have no rights, but because no one has a right to privacy in a public place.
It also is worth noting here that in most jurisdictions, the cameras only take images when a probable violation has occurred. Thus, the government’s legitimate objective of identifying and citing offenders is accomplished with minimal or no intrusion on non-offenders. Several other issues have been raised that are beyond the scope of this paper, but are described on the web.
Automated enforcement is a useful addition to a traffic-law enforcement program. By reducing signal violations and speeding offenses, it reduces crashes. States are using automated enforcement to their advantage in areas where the offense or crash rates are high and where traditional enforcement is difficult or dangerous to accomplish, such as construction zones.
RSS: Roads & Bridges Articles
