Violations of traffic laws result in the needless death of
thousands of individuals and the injury of many more each year. Many of
the deaths and injuries would not have occurred if drivers had obeyed
the existing traffic laws. For over forty years jurisdictions around the
world have successfully used photo-enforcement to reduce the violent
death and injuries caused by these violations.
Enforcement of red-light, rail, speed, and toll laws through
the uses of photo-technology is a practical and cost effective method to
reduce traffic accidents. Current technology includes both wet film and
digital systems which may be deployed with knowledge that public support
for stronger enforcement is strong in most jurisdictions.
These systems serve as a highly visible reminder to the public
of a lesson each individual learns in childhood: Red
means stop!
PhotoCopT is a private, non-commercial web site providing
research, management, and technical information about the
photographic enforcement of traffic laws.
PhotoCop
is designed for traffic, law enforcement, and other governmental
agencies involved in enforcing traffic laws.
PhotoCop
provides information on red light, speed, rail crossing, and toll
enforcement. In addition, locations and news of photo-enforcement sites
in the United States, information about photography, and the legal
issues surrounding this technology is provided.
Red-light
running, speeding, rail crossing violations, and toll violations each
contribute to the needless carnage on our roads.
In response to these problems, many jurisdictions have begun
using automated law enforcement technology to identify and prosecute
violators. In use worldwide - as this photo of a warning sign in London
indicates - for over forty years, red-light, speed, rail crossing, and
toll cameras are finding a place in many US cities.
As mentioned, many jurisdictions around the world are using
photo-enforcement to enforce traffic laws. The technology has only
recently seen any growth in the U.S., however. For the past ten years
many jurisdictions has tested various types of photo-enforcement. Even
though the technology is stable, accurate, and cost effective, many
jurisdictions unsure of local reactions have chosen to run pilot
programs. This is primarily due to political insecurity and has resulted
in slower growth of technology since demand is still relatively
low.
With over
forty years of use worldwide, much research on photo-enforcement
technology exists. In the United States, Richard
Retting of the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safetyhas led the field in
his research into the effectiveness of red-light cameras. Using limited
resources, he has managed to build a library of information on red-light
running. Based in Virginia and using a donated camera, he has conducted
many studies and published several reports of interest.
Photo-enforcement has been used globally in over 45 countries.
Two areas that have used it for some time are: Victoria,
Australia and Ontario,
Canada. One of the newest sites for red-light cameras is Oxnard,
CA. which began issuing citations on July 1, 1997 after completing a
testing period where only warning notices were issued.
Rail crossing accidents are of increasing concern. Recently a
'Cop-in-a-box' automated photo-enforcement at grade crossings began in DuPage
County (IL). The DRSC asked Senator Beverly Fawell to introduce a
bill authorizing a pilot program using 'cop-in-a-box.' S.B. 1154 passed
the General Assembly and was signed into law by Governor Edgar in 1996.
Tickets will be mailed to motorists whose violations are captured on
film at at three high-incident crossings during 1997."
Most photo-enforcement equipment in use around the world is
manufactured by American Traffic
Systems (ATS), Driver Safety
Systems, Ltd. (DSS), Econolite,
Gatsometer,
Multinova, Peek,
TraffiPax, or Truvelo.
Usually, however, jurisdictions buy from distributors such as Electronic
Data Systems (EDS) who resell the equipment and provide processing
services as well, and SAIC-Syntonic
also distribute photo-enforcement systems. Only Redflex
provides complete manufacture, distribution, and processing services in
the United States. (Until recently ATS also provide complete solutions.
However, they sold their U.S. processing contracts to RedFlex and cannot
offer the service again until 2002. ATS still manufactures equipment and
teams with other vendors such as Mulvihill Electric of New York in
offering complete service packages. Only a few manufacturers like
American Traffic Systems (ATS),
Redflex, and Poltech seem committed to
rapidly improving the technology. Many European manufactures are slower
to change since the time and expense to get a new system certified in
the EC is great.
Not everyone likes this application of photographic
technology. Individuals and groups provide many arguments for not using
photo-enforcement. One such individual, for example, is Chris Longhurst.
He has created the definitive work on photo-radar from a citizens point
of view. His Speed-trap
Bible is a great source for those interested in speed enforcement.
For those of us who think we see a camera behind every tree, Mr.
Longhurst also keeps us abreast of devices out there that are NOT
photo-enforcement equipment..
Even some professional journalists have taken sides against
photo-radar. Chris Ridder, in his column Unfit to Print
in the The
Anchorage Press, believes that the use of photo-radar is, "one
step closer to the establishment bringing us to our
knees." While the article focuses on the congestion
problems caused by the use of photo-radar in Alaska, he concludes
his article with a general objection to, "the
inappropriate, seemingly inexorable, intrusion of surveillance cameras
into... every day life."
The National
Motorists Association (NMA) a large lobbying group whose goals
are outlined below also has negative feelings about red-light
cameras and invite others to join. They believe that,
"installing red-light cameras gives the illusion of 'doing
something' when, in effect, it pre-empts or delays legitimate and
needed corrective action."
NMA
Objectives
To guarantee the retention of your
individual rights when using public streets, roads, and
highways.
To support traffic laws based on sound
engineering criteria and public consensus.
To protect your right to own and use the
kinds of vehicles you prefer.
To support improved driver training and
education.
To oppose speed traps and other traffic
enforcement measures carried out for revenue-generation
purposes.
The official position of the NMA is given by Todd
Franklin, the Communications Director of NMA:
National Motorists Association
Position on Photo-enforcement
of Traffic Laws
"NMA opposes the use of
photo enforcement, including the citing of vehicle owners with
moving violations that may or may not have been committed by the
vehicle owner. With properly posted speed limits and
properly installed traffic control devices, there is no need for
photo-based enforcement devices. Taking a reckless
driver's picture does not stop that incidence of reckless
driving."
Comments by Todd Franklin,
Communications Director, NMA
I'll add to that by saying that
we have not seen any verifiable data showing that these devices
reduce accidents. There are a few studies and reports from
such objective groups as ... Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety. While these studies make broad claims about accident
reduction, they universally fail to take into consideration other
factors that may have reduced accidents, as well as random
year-to-year or month-to-month
fluctuations.
Photo enforcement, in our opinion, is about revenue. It also
gives elected officials and other leaders a way to show the public
that they are doing something. (The public doesn't have to
know that accidents will not be reduced, but ticket revenues will
increase dramatically.)
Other individuals have focused on disclosing the location of
cameras or using the red-light cameras for snap shots. Andrew Warner's
WWW Speed
Trap Registry shows the location of speed-traps around the world.
For some time, drivers -- especially cab drivers-- in New York City have
carried lists of the supposed locations of the City's red-light cameras.
The lists were rarely accurate. Still, many locations in the Big Apple
are well known to citizens as can be attested by the collection of
photographs kept by some City staffers. It is not only the back side of
vehiclesthat get photographed. Besides mugging for the
camera, some folks in Queens think dropping a dummy in the road and
running over it for the photo is great fun. New York still has the most
red-light cameras (18) of any city in the U.S.
One very entertaining site is Ask
Mr. Traffic. Many issues related to traffic are presented. Most
detail is about California, but many other points of interest are
presented. The text is interesting and the graphics are great.
An Australian company, RDS,
has some good information or photo-radar use in Australia. RDS stands
for Radar Detection Systems. This should give you some clue as to their
point of view. There are many who see photo-enforcement a a business
opportunity and want to profit from trying to defeat this technology.
Another company - Crutchfield - offers drivers, "The
freedom to relax and drive with confidence."
Of
course radar detectors have been for sale for some time, but new
products have been designed and are being sold to prevent cameras from
recording a license plate. One is called Flash Buster. The maker claims
that this product will cause the plate to be unreadable. Another vendor
sells a , "Complete Line of Anti-Laser and Anti-Photo Radar License
Plate Covers Domestic & International Car and Motorcycle
sizes!" Still another,
Defense Depot, of Tempe, Arizona advertises that their ,
"ELIMINATOR is ... effective against photo-radar, both day and
night, and is completely legal." The images above demonstrate the
effectiveness of their claim.
Another company even offers a warranty, "If Big Brother
can successfully take a readable picture of your license plate within 60
days of purchase, we will refund your purchase price!"
But the most interesting product by far is Stealthguard.
StealthGuard
offers an innovative and unique contribution to Police Radar
Countermeasures in the form of a radar detector companion product... -a
high performance car wax that marginally reduces a vehicle's radar cross
section and the associated effective range of police radar on that
vehicle. Besides this feature, it is also a top performing car wax. www.stealthguard.com
GPS-based camera detector to be
reviewed first by the Speedtrap Bible. I've had a lot of emails
from people in the past, musing about the possibility of using a
GPS-based device to locate the positions of known speedtraps. I've
had to be a bit cagey in my replies because of certain
"goings-on" in this area. Suffice to say, that those
cloak-and-dagger proceedings are drawing to a close, and in June,
the first commercially available GPS-based anti-speedtrap device
is going to be brought to the market. And the Speedtrap Bible is
going to be the first to test it. I can only give you rough
details at the moment and more information will naturally follow
shortly in the form of a full test in the Testing Ground.
The device is called the GEODESY and is manufactured by
Morpheous in the UK. It will cost £380 and will sit on your
dashboard. It needs a clear view of the sky in order to track GPS
satellites, and hence know your location. (Now you know the other
reason I sent out the flyer about the increase in GPS accuracy
last week.) GEODESY can be set to warn you when you are
approaching the location of a known speedtrap. You can set the
warning distance but it will come preset to 1 mile. It will warn
you via a set of lights and/or sounds. What about new trap
locations? Well, the unit ships with a plug-in cradle. You connect
this to your phone socket, and when you drop your unit into the
cradle, it dials up Morpheous and downloads into it's database all
the new locations since your last update.
But how do you report new locations? Simple - GEODESY has a
"report" button on it. If you pass a camera that is
fixed (ie. not mobile sites) that the unit does not warn you
about, you press the button. Next time you connect to the cradle,
it uploads the coordinates of the camera to the central Morpheous
database. The company then confirms the location, and if it's
correct, it goes into the database to be downloaded into everyone
else's units. In this way, the system can be kept up to date. What
about the legality of the device? Well it's totally legal. It's
not a radar detector - simply a GPS navigation aid. To make it
illegal would mean making all in-car navigation aids illegal.
What about cost? The unit costs £380 and comes with a year's
free database access. After that it will cost £30 a year to
register for continued database access.
You can read all about it in the following document - it's an
MSWord document that explains all the technical jiggery pokery far
better than I ever could. http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/geodesy.doc
Keep your eyes and ears peeled for the first reviews, coming
soon to an inbox near you!
Do any these devices really work? Are they really legal?
Please send your experiences to mail@www.photocop.com.
Even some jurisdictions are not pleased with the results. For
various reasons - insufficient revenue and citizen complaints being the
most frequently cited- some programs have been shut down. After having
tried photo-enforcement, Utah recently (April 29, 1996) modified their
existing photo-enforcement law. Use is now restricted to roads with a
speed limit of 30 miles per hour or less. Read all the details in Dan
Harrie's story in The Salt Lake Tribune at: http://utahonline.sltrib.com/96/APR/29/tci/00281635.htm
Anchorage, AK has also abandon photo-radar after a one year
pilot. In a 1997 story in the Anchorage Daily News, "So long,
photo-radar", reporter Don Hunder describes the recent storm of
controversy. For the complete report, please see: "http://www.adn.com/TOPSTORY/T9704092.HTM"
For any public safety program to succeed it must have the
approval and support of the citizenry. The following are a few of the
ways communities may get the citizenry positively involved prior to
installing a photo-enforcement system.
1. Photo Enforcement Warning Signs
Signage informing citizens about the use of
photo-enforcement may be placed at the jurisdictions' discretion or
may be mandated by law. Signs may be placed at every location or at
major entrances to a jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions - e.g. New
York City --have chosen to maintain a stealth program where no signage
is used.
2. Public Awareness Campaign
The objective of a public awareness campaign is to ensure
that no one receives a notice without being forewarned. This strategy
can outline the community education program designed as an on-going
dialogue with community organizations, neighborhood associations, and
schools. This strategy might also include a detailed plan consisting
of a time-line, schedule of events and appearances, list of
organizations and groups, and proposed community education strategy.
3. Press Conference and Equipment Demonstration
If desired, a major kick-off event designed to educate the
community about the objective of the program as a means to improve
traffic safety can be scheduled. The press conference could feature
local and state officials, supportive residents and community leaders
as proponents of the program.
4. Police Department and State Personnel Familiarization
Training
Just as it is critical for the public to be informed about
the implementation of a new photo-enforcement program in their
community, local law enforcement and jurisdiction personnel must be
provided with the information necessary for adequate support and
administration of the program. Training sessions should be scheduled
for all key personnel within the jurisdiction's operational
structure.
Violations of traffic laws result in the needless death of
thousands of individuals and the injury of many more each year. Many of
the deaths and injuries would not have occurred if drivers had obeyed
the existing traffic laws. For over forty years jurisdictions around the
world have successfully used photo-enforcement to reduce the violent
death and injuries caused by these violations.
Enforcement of red-light, rail, speed, and toll laws through
the uses of photo-technology is a practical and cost effective method to
reduce traffic accidents. Current technology includes both wet film and
digital systems which may be deployed with knowledge that public support
for stronger enforcement is strong in most jurisdictions.
These systems serve as a highly visible reminder to the public
of a lesson each individual learns in childhood: Red
means stop!
Roadmap to PhotoCop
The PhotoCop web page consists of over 250 printed pages of
text. To help you get around the following roadmap is provided.
Enforcement - PhotoCop
covers the enforcement of Rail, Red-lights,
Speed, Toll roads,
and HOV. Each topic has one or more
pages devoted to it. In addition a page is devoted to the Vendors
of photo-enforcement equipment and another to the Products
available on the market for enforcement.
Photography - Since
this is a site about the photo-enforcement of
traffic laws, a page is devoted to the technology of photography.
This includes wet film and digital.
References - A Bibliography
of the books used in researching the information presented in
PhotoCop, the Methodology used to
gather information for this site, the Laws of
photo-enforcement, Locations of
photo-enforcement sites, and Terms and
Conditions for use of PhotoCop are included. A single page
containing all the Links used in PhotoCop is
also provided. In addition, a page - Legal
links - is devoted to law related links
Please send a note to media@photocop.com
for information about newspaper or magazine articles or radio/TV interviews.
Click here for the PhotoCop Press Release.
Red-light
running, speeding, rail crossing violations, and toll violations each
contribute to the needless carnage on our roads.
With over
forty years of use worldwide, much research on photo-enforcement
technology exists. In the United States, 
NMA
Objectives
Of
course radar detectors have been for sale for some time, but new
products have been designed and are being sold to prevent cameras from
recording a license plate. One is called Flash Buster. The maker claims
that this product will cause the plate to be unreadable. Another vendor
sells a , "Complete Line of Anti-Laser and Anti-Photo Radar License
Plate Covers Domestic & International Car and Motorcycle
sizes!" Still 
