
New About Photo-enforcement
Sites in the United States
Maps by

www.expediamaps.com
Chandler
Flagstaff
Glendale
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Tempe
Beverly Hills
Click - how cameras fight red-light renegades
Toronto looks at U.S. efforts to reduce crashes
By Nita Lelyveld
Special to The Star
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - No police car pulls anyone over. No sirens wail.
Most drivers don't even know they've been nabbed - until the snapshots arrive in their
mailboxes, attached to a $270 (U.S.) ticket.
It isn't photo radar, it's the red-light camera.
Across the U.S. - where signal-running is the leading cause of accidents -
and in parts of Europe, red-light cameras are the latest tool for police departments light
on staff.
And they may be coming to Toronto.
``They're hard to beat - they're like silent policemen who work 24 hours a
day, seven days a week,'' says Robert Leonard of the New York City Department of
Transportation, which operates 30 cameras at an ever-changing list of intersections.
Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman wants to install red-light cameras on city
street corners in the wake of three accidents in the last week in which one person was
killed and three seriously injured.
Lastman plans to ask Premier Mike Harris next Wednesday for permission to
use the cameras here. The province would first have to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
At $70,000 or more each, the cameras don't come cheap. But Lastman
believes they're worth every penny to combat drivers who run red lights.
`It's become
a way of life in Toronto. People go through red lights and somebody gets hurt or somebody
gets killed.' |
- Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman |
``It's become a way of life in Toronto,'' Lastman told The Star's Lorraine O'Grady
yesterday. ``People go through red lights and somebody gets hurt or somebody gets
killed.''
In the United States, the pole-mounted cameras are turned on by sensors in
the road that are activated when the traffic lights turn from yellow to red.
And they don't just surprise, they deter.
Since New York began its program in 1993, the number of tickets issued
each day has fallen from an average 30 to about 21 per camera.
States and cities regulate camera use differently. For instance, only
California and Arizona allow frontal photos of the cars, capturing not just license plate
numbers but drivers' faces.
Lastman says privacy shouldn't be the deciding factor - catching offenders
should be.
Then there's the psychological aspect. Before launching its program,
Alexandria, Va., sent out 70,000 information postcards, put up signs at every major entry
to the city and made sure the camera-ready intersections were well publicized.
Call to get that information in New York and transportation officials will
laugh.
``We even have decoy (cameras) if we need them,'' Leonard says.
In New York,
tickets for running red are down by half |
In San Francisco, surprise is a key element
of the growing pilot program. ``We like to make it kind of like a shell game,'' says
program manager Bridget Smith.
The city, long plagued by accidents involving cars hitting pedestrians,
issued 6,500 photo citations it the first year.
Even in famously protest-prone 'Frisco, most people seem to support the
cameras and no major civil-liberties group has stepped into the fray.
On its Web page, a Wisconsin-based drivers' advocacy group called the
National Motorists Association proclaims ``Red-Light Cameras: Just Say No'' and warns of
government surveillance and invasion of privacy.
Law enforcement officials say privacy arguments simply don't wash because
driving is a regulated activity and a privilege, not a right.
Still, many people would rather see the officers. In Beverly Hills, there
are occasional complaints about the pilot program launched at the intersection of La
Cienega and Wilshire boulevards last spring.
``I think people object to the fact that it's so impersonal. I mean,
you're dealing with a computer-generated ticket in the mail,'' said program manager Munoz
Flores.
Most states print the photos on the tickets. Doing so cuts down the number
of people contesting them. Still, even with crisp, detailed images, some red-light runners
don't admit their guilt easily. They claim the light was yellow or the car behind them
wouldn't stop.
Such ploys rarely work. The tickets don't just capture license plates;
they record the driver's speed and the time that elapsed between when the light turned and
when the driver entered the intersection. No pictures are taken of cars unless they enter
the intersections after the red light.
All the states with cameras in place have one provision or another to
exonerate a vehicle owner who wasn't driving when the violation occurred. In California,
it's up to the owner to say who was at the wheel.
But even in California, which captures not just license plates but faces,
some people will insist they've been framed. In Beverly Hills, one clean-shaven fellow
assured police that the bearded man shown on his ticket wasn't him.
Some drivers
even confess without being ticketed |
``Unfortunately, in the end, he couldn't
pull it off. He had a distinctive mark, a mole or something, on his forehead,'' said
Flores, laughing. ``The camera caught that, along with his license plate.''
In Oxnard, Calif., a red-light camera managed to catch a thief, who didn't
know anyone was watching as he zipped through a red light while joyriding in a newly
stolen Oldsmobile Cutlass. The ticket went to the car's owner, who came barreling into the
police station, insisting he wasn't responsible.
When he showed his ticket to officers, they didn't just absolve him - they
went hunting, having recognized the face behind the wheel as one of the city's most
persistent car thieves. Faced with the photo, he promptly confessed.
``Here was this crystal clear photograph. And anyone could tell, it was
this same 17-year-old we knew,'' said Detective Chris Orsini. ``He held his head in the
same certain crook. He had the same dumb look he always had, the kind of
kid-with-an-attitude type pose. Last I heard, he'd been sentenced to six months.''
In Fairfax, Va., Lieutenant Jim Gilbertson, who runs the red-light
program, said the police now routinely get confessions from people who haven't even been
ticketed. They drive through red lights, panic about cameras that aren't there and then
call police to ask about fines.
In Toronto, the number of tickets issued since 1995 to red-light runners
has increased 30 per cent.
But the recent tragedies have given the issue new urgency.
Two little girls, aged 2 and 18 months, remained in critical condition
yesterday in the Hospital for Sick Children. They were thrown from a double-stroller at
Spadina Rd. and Lowther Ave. on March 11 by a car sent spinning after it allegedly ran a
red light.
Julius Krusinsky, 58, is in critical condition in hospital after he was
run over at Simcoe and Adelaide streets last Thursday. Krusinsky was curled up in a
sleeping bag over a sidewalk grate when a car ran a red light and hit a second vehicle.
On Tuesday, Irma Barberio was hit and killed at Eglinton Ave. E. and Jane
St. Did Barberio, 59, or the driver cross against the red light?
Harris
government objects to `photo enforcement' |
``We really don't know. . . . It would be
easier if we had access to red-light camera technology,'' acting traffic Sergeant Robb
Knapper told The Star yesterday.
The cameras would be useful because police have been stymied by an absence
of witnesses in the three mishaps.
``We eventually will determine who did what, but in cases like these it
takes a great deal more time,'' Knapper said. ``The camera technology would reduce this
sort of problem.''
But Ontario's Conservative government, which abolished photo radar traps
when it gained power in 1995, appears reluctant to clear the way for red-light cameras.
``This government is not supportive of the use of automated photo
enforcement technologies,'' Transportation Minister Tony Clement said recently.
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

Photo Ops
Beverly Hills police are using high-tech cameras to nab
drivers who run red lights -- and some citizens are irate
By David Potorti
R. Scott Rusch |
Few sinking feelings compare with the sight of a
police cruiser in your rear-view mirror: the flashing lights, the barked command to pull
over, the excruciating wait while the cop runs your plates.
But the City of Beverly Hills wants your law-enforcement
interface to be a wee bit more pleasant. The next ticket you get for running a red light
may be delivered not by a cop, but by your mail carrier. And it may be written not by a
human being, but by a computer.
Welcome to the fast, efficient world of the red-light
camera.
After a year of spitting out 2,000 tickets a month to
red-light runners at the corner of Wilshire and La Cienega -- and reportedly reducing
accidents there by 69 percent -- this photographic RoboCop is getting a sequel at the
corner of Olympic and Spalding near Century City. It will begin issuing citations at the
latter intersection next month.
But at $270 per ticket -- potentially generating more than
$500,000 a month at one corner alone -- the growing use of these traffic cameras raises
questions about prevention versus punishment, and about whether technology is reducing the
stress level on our streets or taking advantage of it. And motorists stung by the
automated citations are already arguing that the system is both illegal and
unconstitutional.
The red-light camera is a high-tech system, used around the
world since the 1970s, which came to California in 1996. The cameras are encased in boxes
mounted atop poles on either side of the street, with flash units for taking photos both
day and night. Working in conjunction with the traffic light, and a pair of
magnetic-induction loops buried in the pavement, the cameras take two pictures in the
instant of time after the light turns red.
Tickets issued by the red-light camera produce twice as many challenges in
Beverly Hills as the old-fashioned kind. |
If your car enters the intersection later than two-tenths of
a second after the light changes (an interval set by the City of Beverly Hills), both you
and your license plate are captured on film, and a ticket is cut. Your first tip-off is a
flash of light.
"It was literally a blinding, distracting white flash,
as if someone had taken a flash photo in my face," recalls local resident Sarah
Flack. "I forgot about it until a week later -- when this thing came in the
mail."
"This thing" was a ticket with four photos
attached: two wide shots of Flack's car in the intersection; a close-up of her behind the
wheel; and a close-up of her license plate. The photos were "computer-stamped"
with the time of day, date, length of yellow-light time (a factor determining her ability
to stop), length of red-light time preceding her entry, and various codes to identify the
intersection and photographs. The ticket carried a fine of $270; an additional court
clerk's charge, and a certificate allowing her to attend traffic school brought Flack's
total to $330.
"It was amusing more than anything else," she
says. "I thought, 'Is this what we've come to?' I didn't have a problem with the
photo, but I thought the fee was way too steep."
So how accurate are these machines? And, more important for
alleged scofflaws, can they be challenged in court?
"My estimation can never match the accuracy of a
computer," says Brad Cornelius, the Beverly Hills police officer in charge of the
project. "But if you made a judgment to run the light because it was unsafe to stop,
it could mitigate the case."
He cites the case of a driver who saw a man running toward
his vehicle as it approached the intersection. The driver thought he was in danger of
bodily harm from this mysterious figure, and ran the light. As luck would have it, the
running man appeared in the red-light photo, and the driver had his ticket thrown out.
But what if the man hadn't shown up on film?
"He wouldn't have had a case," Cornelius concedes.
"In this instance, if an officer was there, he could have corroborated. [The camera]
is impersonal in that respect, in that you don't have an opportunity to speak your case at
the time of violation."
Perhaps as a result, tickets issued by the red-light camera
produce twice as many challenges (about 35 a week) in Beverly Hills as the old-fashioned
kind, according to Hugh Bobys, the city's municipal court commissioner. "A lot of
people just don't understand how it works," he says.
Poor-quality photos tend to get thrown out. If the person at
the wheel isn't the car's registered owner, the citation is reissued to the lucky friend,
spouse, or sibling who might have been driving. Many distracted recipients don't even
realize they've been photographed. "You should see all the pictures we get of people
on their car phones," Cornelius says.
One decidedly undistracted recipient was Mark Share, a
Beverly Hills attorney who challenged his ticket in court. He contends that the red-light
cameras are a speed trap (illegal in California since 1923), and that the system is being
operated by US Public Technologies, its San Diego-based manufacturer, not by a government
entity, as required by law.
"The question is, when you crossed the line, what color
was the light?" Share says. "To determine this, the machine measures the
interval of time it took you to cross over those two sensors in the pavement, and computes
your velocity...it determines that the light had been red for a certain amount of time,
based on when you touched the second sensor. That's a speed trap, and that evidence is
inadmissible in court for any purpose."
Martin Siegel, a retired USC engineering professor and
accident reconstruction engineer, agrees, and is arguing his ticket, too. He complains in
addition that the computer-generated "yellow duration" listed on the tickets is
just three seconds, two seconds less than at other intersections, making it virtually
impossible for drivers to stop in time.
Both men also have an axe to grind with who's vouching for
the system's accuracy -- US Public Technologies, which receives $25 for each conviction.
They say the Beverly Hills Police Department merely rubber-stamps the citations, since it
has no independent technical expert checking whether the cameras are working properly at
all times.
"I think people would be upset if they realized that a
police officer was receiving $25 a pop for each ticket he wrote," says Share.
"It's like being a bounty hunter. (a vendor) owns the equipment, services it, says
it's working properly, and sends out all the citations. Technically, when they decide to
issue a ticket, it's sent to Beverly Hills and is initialed by a police officer. But in
February not a single one of 2,030 tickets that were issued was rejected."
Steven Cron, a criminal-defense attorney in Santa Monica,
also has problems with the system. "It's the same kind of built-in
conflict-of-interest you find with intoxometers," he says. "It's not any
stranger than getting arrested for DUI and having another employee of the police
department check the [breathalyzer] to see if it's working properly. It's definitely a
problem, but unfortunately the courts don't seem to be too troubled by it."
Bobys, the court commissioner, acknowledges that some of
those ticketed are quite irate at being collared by a machine. "Often, a person
receiving a traffic ticket will say, 'Don't you have anything better to do?' " he
says. "If that's how they really feel, then this is one way to have officers doing
'other things.' But they don't like the idea of getting a ticket from a machine. I think
it reminds them of Big Brother."
Dana King, marketing director for US Public Technologies,
which bills itself as "the market leader in automated photo enforcement," is
quick to point out that, unlike surveillance cameras we take for granted at ATMs and
7-Elevens, red-light cameras are turned on "only when someone breaks the law."
King adds, "We have no constitutional expectation of
privacy in our cars on a public street" -- a legal observation shared by ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg.
"Technology like this can raise some serious Fourth
Amendment issues," Eliasberg says. "But there is no question that the city could
post a police presence at these corners 24 hours a day if they wanted to. However, I agree
that this has a very different feeling. There's something about getting a judge to weigh
the difference between a cop's story and your story, versus getting an expert in to judge
a machine."
Cornelius, the Beverly Hills cop, notes the importance of
making sure the photo equipment stays in good working order. "Quality checks have to
be maintained," he says. "If you lose the public trust, or the trust of the
court, the whole thing could get thrown out of California."
Court commissioner Bobys predicts the technology will spread
to other cities, assuming it's upheld in the courts and "there's not such an outrage
among the general populace that they talk their legislators into revoking or discontinuing
it."
But lawyer Share, who lost his court challenge April 7,
hopes to make sure the cameras don't proliferate.
He plans an appeal. If he can persuade a higher court to
invalidate red-light cameras, Beverly Hills could cancel its contract with US Public
Technologies. If you had a ticket pending, it would go away; if you'd already been found
guilty, you'd be out of luck.
In the meantime, Share recommends "a little bit of
civil disobedience."
"People should appeal their tickets," he says.
"It doesn't put any burden on the individual, but it's a lot of work for the court
system."
Bobys doesn't mind what Share is doing.
"I hope he does appeal, because these issues need to be
clarified," the court commissioner says. "If changes need to be made, they
should be made as soon as possible so we can move ahead one way or the other."
Meanwhile, he says, another attorney is challenging the constitutionality of the red-light
cameras this week.
Sarah Flack, however, is making the best of her encounter
with Beverly Hills's finest, ah, lenses.
"Everyone tells me I should use the pictures for a
party invitation," she says.
www.newtimesla.com/archives/1998/041698/faultlines1.html
Los Angeles
Orange County, CA
|

|
|
News Release:
METROLINK,
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ORANGE COUNTY, INSTALLS CAMERAS AT RAILROAD
CROSSING TO CATCH MOTORISTS ZIPPING AROUND GATES
Contact: Peter Hidalgo (213) 452-0233
Drivers Risking Death Will
Receive $104 Moving-Violation Ticket
LOS ANGELES, CA, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999: Some
motorists who risk death by gunning their vehicles across railroad
tracks before the train arrives will get a reward for making it
across alive – a $104 moving-violation ticket in the mail.
In an effort to reduce railroad track deaths, Metrolink has
introduced, for the first time in Orange County, its photo
enforcement system that automatically snaps pictures of motorists
zipping under or around crossing gates. The Santa Ana project, at
Chestnut Ave. near Grand Ave., will move into the penalty phase on
April 1, after a one-month warning phase.
"So far in this calendar year, four pedestrians or
motorists have been killed on Metrolink tracks because they
weren’t supposed to be there," said Sarah L. Catz,
Metrolink Board Member and OCTA representative. "We’re
trying to convince people that they run a serious risk of dying
when they cross railroad tracks after the bells are activated and
the crossing gates start to drop. We hope that a $104 ticket will
help deliver that message."
The Metrolink demonstration project began with the installation
of equipment at Chestnut Ave. in early-February. Once installed,
the equipment was used to collect data for three weeks (Feb.
12-Mar. 5). Beginning March 1 warning notices were issued. After
just 21 days Metrolink officials were shocked by the numbers.
"We counted 145 violations at Chestnut St. The numbers
blew us away," said David Solow, Metrolink’s Executive
Director. "Most were blatant violations, with drivers dodging
the gates to get through the crossing just seconds before a train
blasted through."
Signs are posted at the intersection that say, "photo
enforcement in use." For the past month, registered owners of
vehicles photographed violating the state’s grade crossing law
have been receiving mailed warnings. On April 1, those warnings
become tickets.
Metrolink began a demonstration program at two Los Angeles
County railroad crossings in June of 1998 - one at Van Nuys Blvd.
in Pacoima and the other at Goodwin Ave. in Glendale - to test the
effectiveness of photo enforcement in reducing the number of
people who risk their lives zipping around crossing gates. Four
months after the project began, violations were down 54 percent at
Goodwin Ave. and 36 percent at Van Nuys Blvd.
The TRAXGUARDTM system in use at these crossings
includes an enforcement unit - containing a computer, high-speed
camera, flash and digital loop signal processor - mounted on a
pole at the crossing. Detection loops and wiring are installed in
the street pavement. The system is triggered when a vehicle is
detected entering the railroad crossing after the flashing lights
and ringing bells have activated and the crossing arms have begun
to descend.
An Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy reviews violation photos to
ensure they show the vehicle’s license plate and driver’s
face. A citation is issued when the photo shows the gate had
dropped at least a quarter of the way when the vehicle crossed the
tracks.
The $150,000, six-month demonstration project in Orange County
will examine whether violation rates drop as a result of
citations. The Metrolink Board of Directors will evaluate the
photo enforcement project and its effectiveness at the project’s
conclusion this fall.
# # #
|
Oxnard
Can Cameras Make Drivers See Red?
By Jane Ciabattari
Parade's Special Intelligence Report
Violations for running red lights have dropped 42% in
Oxnard, Calif. Why? Cameras were placed on the lights, and violators are ticketed. Other
towns should follow Oxnards lead. Drivers who run lights kill 850 people a year in the
U.S. and cause 260,000 accidends, says the insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
(Phoenix and Mesa, Ariz., had the worst rates.) The total of fatal accidents rose 15% from
1992 to 1996, with the drivers likely to be under 30, drunk and unlicensed.
Parage Magazine, July 5, 1998
Poway
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco

Department of Parking and Traffic
Red Light Photo Enforcement Program
April 7, 1998 Press Release | Program
Fact Sheet
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 7, 1998
Contact:
Bridget Smith, DPT - 415/554-2346
Abbie Yant, DPH - 415/554-9970
Richard Retting, IIHS - 703/247-1582
Fewer Collisions, Injuries and Deaths Result
from City Crack Down on Red Light Running
(San Francisco) -- After only six months of red light
camera-enforcement the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) found that
the number of red light runners dropped by 42 percent at camera-enforced
intersections. Last month the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
reported virtually identical results in Oxnard, California where the
country's leading researchers on red light running evaluated the influence
of red light photo enforcement on red light violation rates. The Insurance
Institute study included locations not equipped with cameras and found
that there was a "spill over" effect at these locations as well.
At the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Supervisor
Gavin Newsom, while working with various Departments in maintaining the
momentum against red light running, said, "It is always heartening
for policy makers to see measurable, positive results from our programs,
such as that shown by our red light camera study and duplicated by the
Oxnard Study. I congratulate the collective efforts of the Department of
Parking and Traffic, the Police Department, and the Department of Health,
in working together within the political process to produce a model
program"
DPT announced today that collisions caused by red light
running have decreased by about 10 percent citywide since San Francisco
increased efforts to stop red light running through the use of
camera-enforcement and a public awareness campaign. An estimated 125
injuries have been prevented according to information provided by the
State Wide Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS) which shows a significant
decrease in the number of injuries and fatalities resulting from these
collisions.
"This is very exciting!" said Bridget Smith,
DPT's Red Light Photo Enforcement Program Manager. "This is the first
such decrease we've seen in over five years. Ten percent is a significant
reduction and a great start." San Francisco plans to continue the
campaign against red light runners by expanding the Red Light Photo
Enforcement Program to cover an additional twenty-nine intersections and
expanding public outreach and police enforcement efforts. Supervisor
Newsom adds "When measuring the cost-effectiveness of camera
enforcement, we can give ourselves a bonus in the number of lives
saved."
The "spill over" effect, combined with the
Department of Public Health's STOP Red Light Running Campaign and targeted
police enforcement, accounts for this citywide decrease in the number of
collisions caused by red light running. "The news is quite
encouraging. It substantiates the Police Department's belief that an
active traffic enforcement plan coupled with public education will produce
positive results," said Captain Roy Sullivan of the San Francisco
Police Department's Traffic Company. Dr. Mitchell Katz, Director of Public
Health said "The Department of Public Health is pleased to see this
reduction in vehicle crashes and numbers of persons injured. Our efforts
in conducting the STOP Red Light Running Campaign will continue in
collaboration with other City Departments.
For more information, please contact:
Bridget Smith, DPT- 415/554-2346
RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FACT
SHEET
July 30, 1999
Background
Red light violators cause an average of 786 reported
collisions and 1,324 injuries annually in San Francisco according to the
Department of California Highway Patrol. These collisions cost the local
economy an estimated $40 million annually not including property damage.
Considering also the high incidence of unreported collisions, the actual
cost is much higher.
In 1996, the State Legislature amended the California
Vehicle Code to allow automated enforcement of red light violations for a
trial period of three years. In early 1998, as this law reached its
sunset, the Legislature debated its value and voted to make it permanent.
This bill was signed into law on June 1, 1998.
San Francisco has more than 1,000 signalized
intersections. Using a conservative estimate of ten violations occurring
at each signal per day, an estimated 3.5 million red light violations
occur annually in San Francisco. In 1997, the San Francisco Police
Department issued more than 21,000 citations to red light violators. The
Red Light Photo Enforcement Program issued more than 5,000 additional
citations during that same period.
Thanks to Assembly Bill 1191, authored by Assemblyman
Kevin Shelley, red light violation fines increased in 1998 from $104 to
$271. This increased fine results in increased revenue to local agencies,
essential for funding automated enforcement efforts throughout California.
The cities of Beverly Hills, El Cajon, Oxnard, Poway, Sacramento, San
Diego and Santa Rosa now have red light photo enforcement programs, and
many other jurisdictions are pursuing programs.
Pilot Project
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority
authorized $250,000 from sales taxes to begin a pilot Red Light Photo
Enforcement Program. In October 1996 San Francisco contracted with two
vendors to initiate the pilot project and became the first city in
California to automated enforcement for red light violations.
Since the program began in October 1996, more than 12,000
citations have been issued through the Red Light Photo Enforcement
Program. Within the first six months of the pilot project the number of
red light runners at camera-enforced intersections dropped more than 40
percent. Since San Francisco increased efforts to stop red light running,
there has been a decrease in the number of collisions and injuries caused
by red light violators citywide.
Program Expansion
The City has selected a vendor to expand the Red Light
Photo Enforcement Program from the five pilot locations to twenty-six
locations throughout the City. This first phase of expansion is currently
underway. Future expansion will include five additional locations funded
by Caltrans, four locations to be funded by the Moscone Center Expansion
Project and a location funded by the Chronicle Publishing Company,
bringing the total number of camera-enforced intersections to thirty-six.
©1999 City & County of San
Francisco
San Jose
Lights, camera . . . and export action!
D.M. WALKER
D.M. WALKER
A company helping to cut Victoria's road
toll yesterday launched the world's first high-resolution, high-speed digital speeding and
red-light cameras.
The manufacturer, Redflex Traffic Systems, said yesterday it
had received expressions of interest in the system from traffic authorities worldwide,
which it said could lead to millions of export dollars for Australia.
The company's managing director, Mr Rob Ciolli, said the
Melbourne-based operation - which helped install Victoria's traffic surveillance cameras -
had spent about two-and-a-half years working with Kodak Australia to develop the camera
system, which recorded images digitally instead of on film, and used electronic aperture
instead of mechanical shutters.
He said the new system gave better resolution than
traditional film-cameras, and could record up to seven images every second instead of the
two pictures per second film-cameras recorded. Electronic shutters also enabled better
synchronisation with flashes, which had to be kept short to avoid distracting drivers.
Mr Ciolli, who helped seal the first contract with the
United States for the new speed-camera system in California's San Jose, added that the
red-light cameras had to perform extra functions to conform with US requirements.
"In America they have to take an image of the vehicle
before it enters the intersection," he said. The digital camera records images of
cars continuously and holds them on memory for a split-second.
"When it detects an offence it goes back two or three
frames to see the vehicle before it entered the intersection," Mr Ciolli said. The
camera then matched the "before-and-after-images" and sent them down telephone
lines or fibre optic cables to the police.
The red-light systems cost between $80,000 and $90,000 each.
The company has set up an office in San Francisco.
Published by The Age Online Pty Ltd ACN
069 962 885
©1998 David Syme & Co Ltd
In a follow-up note to PhotoCop regarding this
article, RedFlex states, "(The Age
Online) have INCORRECTLY STATED that the system was developed after two and one half years
with Kodak Australia. In fact, while we have applied Kodak cameras in the past, this
new system applies the latest Sony WfineCCD advanced image sensor technology.
Santa Rosa
SR-51 (Toll road)
Bolder
Commerce City
Denver
Ft.
Collins
Hawaii
Photo cops:
Snap, click, you’re
busted
A proposal would set up a
three-year traffic photo enforcement
experiment
By Rod Ohira
Star-Bulletin
Oahu motorists may soon pay a stiff price for running a
red light or speeding if lawmakers approve the use of photo enforcement.
Automated photo red light and photo radar systems have
been used with great success in other countries and states, including New
York and California, police traffic Maj. Barbara Wong said.
A bill expected to be introduced this legislative session
calls for a three-year demonstration project and sets higher fines for
such violations, starting at $100 for the first offense. The current fine
for running a red light is $42.
Advocating the systems is a task force composed of police,
public transportation, the judiciary and Legislature, neighborhood boards,
the city Traffic Violations Bureau and prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The red-light system provides front and rear photos of a
car that enters an intersection against the light, showing the license
plate.
Imprinted on the photographs are the time, date, location
of the violation, the number of seconds the light had been red before the
violation occurred and the speed of the vehicle.
Sensors buried under crosswalks leading to a camera mounted on a nearby
pole trigger the system.
If approved, the project will start with three photo red
light camera systems, worth $50,000 apiece, Wong said.
"Poles with camera boxes will be set up at various
intersections, but the working system will be rotated so drivers won't
know which intersection is being monitored," Wong said.
The photo-radar system is mounted on a sport utility
vehicle or van parked along the roadside.
Speeds of passing motorists are monitored and when a
violation occurs, a high-resolution camera photographs the front of the
vehicle, driver's face and license plate. A second camera photographs the
back of the vehicle.
The system uses low-power radar with a narrow beam so
detectors are ineffective.
Private companies will provide all equipment, process the
citations and keep status reports in exchange for a percentage of fines
assessed per ticket, police say. The fine increase being proposed in the
bill takes into account the vendor fee.
"It's a turnkey program that costs nothing,"
Wong said. "And it'll serve as a huge deterrent.
Citations will be mailed and fines must be paid to the
Traffic Violations Bureau within 14 days upon receipt - similar to a
parking ticket. Otherwise, a court summons will follow.
"The potential is unlimited," Wong said.
"Cities using the systems have seen their collision rates reduced
dramatically and that's the bottom line."
Signs will be posted, alerting drivers that the system is
in place.
© 1997 Honolulu Star-Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com
Du
Page, Co.
Howard
County
January 12,1998
The First digital red-light camera in The
United States was placed in operation Friday January 9, 1998 in Howard County,
Maryland. Under a FHWA study grant, Driver Safety
Systems (DSS) of Israel activated the first of two cameras at a busy multi-lane
intersection in Columbia MD. The second camera is expected to be activated Monday
January 12, 1998.
The red-light digital cameras send images
over an ISDN telephone line to a PC computer in Police Headquarters. The cameras and
software are undergoing adjustment by DSS personnel
before County evaluation and use. During evaluation, red-light violators will be
issued warning notices
January 29
Peek
Traffic headquarted in England has installed a digital camera at a Columbia
intersection in Howard County and another in Rockville in Montgomery County. Both
red-light cameras are connected to a computer at Howard County Police Headquarters.
Warning notices (different for each county) will be automatically printed in color.
Redflex Traffic Systems Ltd. of
Australia will begin a multi-month demonstration of their color digital red-light camera
system in mid-February at a Columbia , Md. intersection. Like the other two digital
systems, a PC computer at Police Headquarters will gather images from the remote camera
using telephone lines and produce color warning notices to violators.
Montgomery County
Bloomington
Minneapolis
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)
St. Paul
New York City
According to an article in CIO:
The benefits of information technology aren't always
measured in increased revenues. In 1982, after a car ran a red-light and hit an
18-month-old girl in a stroller, the New York Department of Transportation (DOT) started
to research automated law enforcement systems to monitor and ticket drivers who don't know
when to stop. New York City's red-light Vehicular Monitoring System, which hit the streets
in 1993 after a series of delays, features 18 cameras that photograph vehicles that run
red-lights at high-traffic and accident-prone intersections
New York recently began plans to expand its hugely successful
red-light program from the eighteen existing cameras to an estimated 68. As the first
large red-light program in the U.S., the NYC red-light program has been a model to many
cities.
Charlotte
Oregon's Photo-radar law.
Beaverton
Portland
Leighton
Chattanooga
According to the The Chattanooga Times:
The Tennessee Department of Transportation recently approved
his request for a high-tech camera to photograph those who ignore traffic signals or fail
in trying to beat the light.

Alexandria
Fairfax
Vienna
Vienna will soon install 1-2 red-light cameras.
Clark County
Clark County has 1 photo-radar unit.
Spokane
Spokane's new systems are on hold waiting for computer access and
the resolution of legal issues.Read the reports by Kristina Johnson in the The
Spokesman-Review and Tracy Ellig also in the The
Spokesman-Review.
Spokane has decided against the use of photo-enforcement.
GW Parkway to Get Cameras
By Eric L. Wee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 1999; Page B07
Motorists on the George Washington Parkway who hit the gas when no police
cars are in sight may soon discover they're still being watched.
National Park Service officials said
yesterday they are experimenting with automatic radar-equipped cameras on
the parkway that will snap pictures of speeders in the act and allow
police to send a summons through the mail.
Under the project, which officials believe
would be among the first of its kind in the nation, the Park
Service--which oversees the federal road--and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration have installed cameras at Gravelly Point near Reagan
National Airport and at Turkey Run, just north of the CIA exit.
Audrey Calhoun, superintendent of the
parkway, said the park service will test the cameras, which cost $100,000
each, for six months. If the test is successful, she said, owners of cars
that speed will begin finding tickets in their mailboxes.
"The speed on the parkway and all the
aggressive driving . . . it's been a problem for years," Calhoun
said. She said the search for ways to expand enforcement got a push from a
notorious 1996 incident on the road, when three people died after two
motorists carried on a high-speed driving duel.
In one recent effort to discourage
speeding, Park Police placed portable radars with message boards along the
highway to remind drivers how fast they were traveling. That seemed to
slow many people down, but they sped up again after the signs were taken
away, Calhoun said.
The Park Police force isn't large enough to
constantly patrol the entire 27.5-mile highway, she said. "We don't
have enough officers," Calhoun said.
The cameras operate much like those that
are used to catch red-light runners at intersections, designed to
photograph the license plate of the offending car so the registered owner
can be identified and sent a traffic citation.
The cameras, long used in Europe, have the
capacity to photograph license plates 180 feet away and can track traffic
in both directions. The two experimental parkway cameras will target only
northbound vehicles to start.
Calhoun said the idea for the cameras came
from the federal traffic agency, which is funding the project. The
six-month trial will help officials determine whether the technology can
produce accurate data and clear pictures, Calhoun said. If so, more
cameras will go up, she said.
James Tuton, president of American Traffic
Systems Inc. of Arizona, which is supplying the equipment, said yesterday
there was no question about the accuracy of the system. He said
jurisdictions in many western states have used similar systems on mobile
units for more than a decade, but that the George Washington Parkway
project involves the first fixed cameras that will operate automatically.
When the system is up and running,
"we're going to see fewer crashes and speed will decrease
dramatically closer to the speed limit," Tuton said.
In a recent survey conducted by the
American Automobile Association, 65 percent of those polled in the
Washington area supported using cameras to catch speeders, contrary to
polls of a few years ago when such systems were strongly opposed. But a
significant 22 percent remain strongly against cameras, worrying that they
are an invasion of privacy, AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman Lon Anderson said.
It is significant that a federal agency is
undertaking the radar-camera program, because it remains questionable
whether local jurisdictions could do so without special state legislation.
Virginia, for example, had to pass a law in 1995 to ensure that tickets
issued automatically to red-light runners couldn't be challenged in court.
Calhoun said the Park Service felt it could
go forward with the project because the parkway falls under federal rules.
But she said officials also will use the six-month testing process to
ensure that the tickets would hold up in court.
"We have looked at our
regulations," she said, "and initially our view is that we think
we can do it."
© 1999 The Washington Post Company
Automatic
cameras effective for reducing red-light runners
ASSOCIATED
PRESS
WASHINGTON,
Jan. 12, 2000 - Automatic cameras that take pictures at traffic
intersections are an effective tool for reducing the number of drivers
running red lights, the government says.
“AN
AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT program for red-light running should translate into
at least 20 and as much as a 60 percent reduction in violations,” the
Federal Highway Administration said in a report presented at a conference
Tuesday.
There wasn’t enough data on the relatively new
technology to show whether the cameras also reduced the number of crashes
in intersections, the report said.
The report presents the preliminary results of
red-light camera programs in three areas: Los Angeles County, Polk County,
Fla., and Howard Country, Md. All three received federal grants to test
the technology.
Each year, red-light running accounts for about
260,000 crashes, 121,000 injuries and more than 800 deaths nationwide,
according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Fatal crashes at
intersections with traffic signals have risen 24 percent, from 1,888 in
1992 to 2,344 in 1997.
“You
see more violations in rush hours when people are in a hurry,” said
David M. Smith, a transportation specialist with the highway
administration.
In California, the cameras were used at crossings
for a light rail line running between Los Angeles and Long Beach. Between
1990 and 1997, there were 353 crashes between trains and cars, resulting
in 33 deaths.
At the initial three crossings using cameras the
number of drivers running red lights dropped 92 percent, 78 percent and 34
percent, respectively, the report said. Warning signs alerted drivers to
the presence of the cameras.
Based on the positive results, the county transit
authority decided to install the cameras at 17 rail crossings.
Cameras in most states take photos from the rear
of the intersection, so the driver can’t be seen, but the California
program also used a picture of the driver’s face for identification.
Maryland’s highly reflective license plates
often hindered the camera’s effectiveness by creating too much glare for
clear photos, but the test program did reduce the overall number of red
light violations at selected intersections by 23 percent.
While not receiving federal funds, a New York City
program started in 1993 resulted in a 38 percent decrease in violations at
18 monitored intersections, the report said.
When a car speeds through a red light, a magnetic
relay beneath the pavement sends a signal and the camera’s shutter
opens. A computer notes the time, date, vehicle speed and amount of time
the light was red.
While the ticketing process varies between
programs, usually a technician retrieves the film from each camera daily
and has it developed or scanned into a computer. After license plate
information is processed, the police print and verify a ticket which is
then mailed to the registered car owner.
In most states, drivers can go to court and
testify they weren’t behind the wheel, but in New York, the registered
owner is liable.
Most of the programs used traditional film
equipment, but some have experimented with digital cameras.
About 250 cameras are trained on intersections
across the country and that number is expected to double annually,
suppliers say.
The cameras, long used in Europe and other
countries, have been slow to catch on in the United States. But since the
first cameras went up in New York, they have spread to nearly 50 cities
and 10 states.
© 2000 Associated Press. All rights
reserved.
District Motorists Advised to Heed
Photo Enforcement Cameras or Face Driving Penalty
Program Expected to Cut Intersection Violations
June 30, 1999
In the District, the beginning of the summer will also
mean the beginning of a comprehensive traffic safety program, designed to
reduce injuries and deaths at intersections, just in time for the 4th of
July holiday weekend.
Starting June 30, 1999, one of the nation’s largest
automated photo enforcement projects will begin in the District, as the
city joins the growing list of communities nationwide that are cracking
down on aggressive driving.
Under a contract with Washington, D. C., [a vendor] IMS is
installing 40 cameras at various District intersections designed to deter
violation of the District’s traffic laws. The first cameras, which will
monitor red-light running, will start capturing violations on June 30,
1999.
Metropolitan Police Chief Charles
Ramsey said, "Traffic in the District is a major concern to us
all. The fatalities, injuries and property damage that our officers see on
a first hand basis speaks to the need for the added enforcement these
cameras will provide. Red-light running and speeding pose a serious threat
to the people of Washington, D.C., because they threaten our families and
our children." He added "This new traffic safety program is an
important part of our effort to prevent needless injuries and deaths by
aggressive drivers."
Last year, U. S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater
announced a nationwide campaign to target aggressive driving and install
more red light cameras at intersections. The Department of Transportation
reports some 8,000 people die and a million are hurt annually in such
crashes. Slater said red light running is the leading cause of urban
crashes.
Chicago, IL.; Newark, DL; and Philadelphia, PA
Last revised:
April 30, 2006
U.S. Conference of Mayors - 1999
|

|
Resolutions
Adopted at the
67th Annual
Conference of Mayors
New Orleans,
Louisiana
June 11-15, 1999
|
|
TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS
PHOTO
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
WHEREAS,
drivers who run red lights were responsible for and estimated
460,000 crashes in 1996, of which 2,600 were fatal, according to
the Federal Highway Administration; and
WHEREAS, fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals
increased by 19 percent between 1992 and 1996, far out pacing the
6 percent rise in all other fatal crashes, according to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; and
WHEREAS, all red light running crashes increased by 15
percent between 1992 and 1996, according to the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety; and
WHEREAS, in 1997 626,000 people received minor injuries in
speeding-related crashes; an additional 75,000 received moderate
injuries, and 41,000 received critical injuries, according to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and
WHEREAS, the costs of speeding related crashes were
estimated to be $28.9 billion in 1997, according to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and
WHEREAS, there are some 160,000 public grade crossings in
the United States, of which 66,000 have active warning devices;
and
WHEREAS, there were more than 4,100 collisions at public
highway rail crossings with ten people killed and eleven injured
in 1997, according to the Federal Railroad Administration; and
WHEREAS, the use of photo enforcement for grade violations
on the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Blue
Line, connecting the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, has
reduced violations by 92 percent; and
WHEREAS, the introduction of photo enforcement has reduced
red light running and reduced related injuries by 10 percent,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The U.S. Conference of
Mayors supports state enactment of legislation enabling cities to
implement photo enforcement programs for red light running, speed,
and public highway rail grade crossing violations. |
Tools
Of The Trade
You Oughta Be in Pictures...Red Light Photo Enforcement
According
to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), drivers who run
red lights are responsible for 260,000 crashes each year, of which
approximately 750 are fatal. A study conducted at a busy Arlington
County, Virginia, intersection showed that motorists ran a red light
every 12 minutes during nonpeak hours. Between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., the
frequency jumped to every five minutes.1 Estimates place the annual cost
to Americans for red light running at more than $7 billion.2
Several
states and local communities currently use or are considering
installation of photographic enforcement technology as a tool to reduce
red light running. Mesa, Arizona, for example, has initiated a one-year
pilot program, during which mobile speed camera units are located in
zones where chronic speeding and red light running cause frequent and
serious accidents. Speed cameras are mounted in plainly marked police
vans and operated by police service officers. The red light cameras are
fixed installations mounted at intersections where accidents are
frequent. In Mesa, traffic tickets are issued to the vehicle's
registered owner via mail.3
Special
Considerations
The
adoption of a photo enforcement system is not an overnight decision.
Many considerations-financial, political, legal, and logistical-must be
weighed carefully before any commitments are made.
What
Does the Law Say? Myriad state and local laws regulate the use of
photo enforcement equipment. In California, current legislation holds
drivers liable and assesses points. In other states, car owners are held
liable and points are not assessed. In Illinois, the law allows a
citation to be given only when a crash occurs. At least three states
require front and rear photos of violators. Some states consider red
light running a civil offense. Others label it a criminal offense. Even
fine amounts run the gamut. In Alexandria, Virginia, drivers are
assessed $50 per infraction. (And, in order to prosecute those who don't
pay the $50 fine, officers must personally serve court summons.) In
Beverly Hills, California, the fee is $271.4
Where
to Put Cameras? According to Mark Canoyer, technical services
division chief, Alexandria, Virginia, Police Department, traffic volume
is not a good indicator of the number of intersection violations that
may occur. "Each intersection has its own characteristics. You've
got to be prepared to monitor the system and move equipment if the
volume of infractions is lower than expected."5
How
Much Does Equipment Cost? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
quotes equipment costs of about $50,000 per camera and $5,000 per
installation and sensors. A single red light camera can be used at
several locations once the sites are equipped to work with the camera.
This way, communities can move cameras between sites without drivers
knowing exact locations.1
Costs
are, to a large degree, determined by the needs of the community to be
served. Will pictures of both front and rear license plates be needed?
Will shots of drivers' faces be taken? Will cameras be placed on
single-lane roads or two-lane highways? Simpler uses can translate into
the need for less sophisticated-and less expensive-equipment.
How
Much Publicity? Agencies must examine their goals for using photo
enforcement equipment when deciding how to promote the program. Is the
primary objective to catch as many violators as possible or to prevent
intersection violations from occurring in the first place? "We've
gone from trying to make the cameras as unobtrusive as possible to
erecting signs that let motorists know they are in use," says Chief
Canoyer. Last year, Howard County, Maryland, the first jurisdiction in
the state to use photo enforcement equipment, issued a press release
(which also appeared on its Web site), to announce the use of cameras,
explain ticketing procedures, and inform citizens about the problems red
light running causes the community.
Agencies
should remember to allot funds for publicity/advertising costs,
including signage and media/community inquiries, if the program is to be
publicized.
Support
for photo enforcement is high. According to an American Trauma Society
survey, 84 percent of Americans believe that red light running has
either stayed the same or gotten worse over the past few years.6 An IIHS
poll revealed that 66 percent of those responding favor the use of red
light cameras. Although polls show that most Americans support the use
of photo enforcement technology, agencies should be prepared to handle
negative responses from the public, the media, privacy advocate groups,
and government officials. In California, for example, some legislators
have voiced strong opposition to photo enforcement technology, calling
it an intrusion into people's private lives, and are fighting to abolish
it.7
Who
Will Do What? Generally, contracts with photo enforcement equipment
and maintenance suppliers can be written two ways: 1) the contractor is
paid a percentage for each ticket issued, or 2) the contractor is paid a
flat fee. When considering implementation of a photo enforcement system,
it is important to take into account who will be responsible for the
daily administration of the program. Will new staff be brought on board
or will current staff be assigned new duties, such as reviewing
photographs? In some jurisdictions, laws require violations to be
processed, verified, and notarized by law enforcement staff. In others,
equipment contractors are permitted to fulfill this function.
"Although our contractor performs all equipment maintenance and
film developing, the enforcement aspect has expanded our workload,"
explains Sergeant Paul Story, Alexandria, Virginia, Police Department.
"The cameras have produced a high volume of pictures, which means
our staff spends time contacting area departments of motor vehicles to
identify violators."
How
Effective Is Photo Enforcement?
According
to the National Organization for Traffic Intersection Safety,
preliminary crash data from localities using photo red light enforcement
indicates that the number of intersection crashes has decreased.
Victoria, Australia, experienced a 32 percent reduction in such crashes
six months after cameras were installed. IIHS data from Oxnard,
California, shows that red light violations have decreased throughout
the community, not only at intersections with cameras.
Most
traffic safety professionals and contractors agree that photo
enforcement programs will never become major profit centers. "Red
light cameras never make money," says Jim Tuton, president of
American Traffic Systems. "Cost savings are realized through
insurance savings because traffic violations drop considerably. Photo
enforcement is such an effective concept that it can run itself out of
business."
The
Manufacturers
There
are over two dozen companies that manufacture photo enforcement supplies
and equipment. Two of the largest companies include American Traffic
Systems (which services Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Minnesota, and
Florida) and [a vendor] IMS (which services Alexandria and Arlington,
Virginia, and Charlotte, North Carolina).4
Photo
enforcement equipment usually is highly customized to meet individual
jurisdictions' needs, although all systems have the same basic
components. "All photo detection equipment consists of a detector,
the logic or software control system, and an imaging component, says Jim
Tuton, president of American Traffic Systems. "The detector can use
infrared, radar, loops, video detection, piezo-electric sensors, or some
combination of these elements. The imaging component can be video,
digital, or film.
Rhode
Island-based manufacturer Nestor, Inc., for example, has developed a
video system that detects and records vehicles with a video clip. The
clip is stored as a digital file and transmitted electronically to
public safety department computers. It can be uploaded in real time, so
officers can view images of violations one minute after they occur. Some
systems also reportedly may help prevent accidents. "The system we
recently developed can predict when a vehicle is going to run a red
light. The camera sends a signal to the traffic controller to extend the
red light so cross traffic won't enter the roadway," says Douglas
Reilly, senior vice president of Nestor, Inc.
Photo
red light enforcement technology is a new concept for many
jurisdictions, so it is wise to contact several of the agencies
nationwide that have implemented such programs. It is also advisable to
consult with engineers or other individuals with the technical education
and experience necessory to assess your community's needs. This may help
your agency avoid pitfalls and possibly reap benefit from other
agencies' successes.
References
-
Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety fact sheet. December 1998.
-
USDOT-NHTSA
Traffic Injury Control Program, August 1998.
-
Information
obtained from the Mesa, Arizona, Web site.
-
National
Organization for Traffic Intersection Safety (NOTIS) fact sheet.
November 1998.
-
Interview.
Alexandria, Virginia, Police Department. January 21, 1998.
-
American
Trauma Society fact sheet. "1998 Stop Red Light Running
Program."
-
Nando
Times, "Red Light Cameras Get the Brake in California."
Los Angeles, May 4, 1998
-- February 1999 issue of Sheriff magazine: |
|
Environment, Energy and
Transportation Program
Invisible Traffic Cops
By Chris Burnett
An Article from the December 1998 State
Legislatures Magazine
People complained in 1903 when Massachusetts and
Missouri made them get the first licenses to drive. Now they're
complaining about cameras set up to catch them speeding through
red lights.
On the way to work, you suddenly see the flash.
The bright light, visible for only a split second, has come from
an unmarked white station wagon on the shoulder of the road.
Glancing in the rearview mirror, you notice a man slouched in the
driver's seat reading the newspaper.
You know that camera traffic enforcement has
come to your town, but it seems hard to imagine you're its latest
victim. After all, you really weren't going that fast, were you?
A few weeks later, the flash now a distant
memory, the notification arrives in an envelope marked official
city business. The ticket says you were going 43 in a 30-mile
per-hour zone, and that you owe $40. You can pay by mail. If you
want to contest the ticket, you can view the picture at the
municipal court, and challenge it like any other traffic fine.
Is this high-tech enforcement Big Brother in an
Orwellian world, a loss of personal freedom through due process
rights, or a necessary step in the fight for highway safety?
Increasingly, state legislators and city
officials across the country are being asked to answer that
question. Scenarios such as the one above occur daily in Fort
Collins, Colo., a city of 105,000 that adopted photo traffic
enforcement two years ago.
Police officers there emphasize the positive.
Since the program began in August 1996, the city has had a
reduction in personal injury and overall accidents. Comparing 1995
and 1997 figures, accident rates dropped 5 percent and injury
accidents dropped 18 percent.
The program also pays for itself, even after
taking out payments to the contractor and court costs. "This
is one tool in the toolbox [for reducing accidents]," said
Rita Davis, with the Fort Collins police department.
STATE POLICIES FOR THE USE OF TRAFFIC CAMERA
RADAR
|
California
|
- Establishes conditions on the use of
red-light and rail crossing cameras by law enforcement
officials.
|
|
Colorado
|
- Authorizes the use of cameras to
enforce traffic regulations.
- Prohibits the Colorado Department of
Motor Vehicles from assessing points for camera
detected violations.
- Prohibits using the state's system
for tracking outstanding judgments and warrants to
keep drivers with unpaid photo radar tickets from
renewing their licenses.
- Sets a $40 cap on fines for photo
radar detected violations.
- Requires warning tickets for
first-time offenders if their violations are less than
10 mph over the speed limit.
- Requires cities using camera systems
to compensate the suppliers of those systems based on
the value of its equipment and services rather than on
the number of tickets generated by the system.
|
|
Delaware
|
- Authorizes a red-light camera program
throughout the state.
|
|
District of Columbia
|
- Authorizes a red-light camera program
in the district.
|
|
Illinois
|
- Authorizes the use of traffic cameras
at rail crossings.
|
|
Maryland
|
- Authorizes law enforcement agencies
statewide to mail citations to owners of motor
vehicles recorded by a traffic control signal
monitoring system in violation of traffic laws.
|
|
New Jersey
|
- Prohibits the use of camera radar by
law enforcement officers or agencies.
|
|
New York
|
- Authorizes cities with populations of
more than 1 million to operate demonstration projects
with a maximum of 25 photo monitoring devices.
|
|
North Carolina
|
- Authorizes the city of Charlotte to
operate a red-light camera program.
|
|
Oregon
|
- Authorizes Portland and Beaverton to
operate camera radar demonstration projects at their
own cost.
- Requires jurisdictions to initiate
public information campaigns to inform drivers about
the use of camera radar and evaluate outcomes.
- Restricts areas and lengths of
operation.
- Outlines conditions for the issuance
of citations.
- Repeals the act on Dec. 31, 1998.
|
|
Texas
|
- Establishes a pilot program for use
of camera radar at rail crossings.
|
|
Utah
|
- Limits camera radar to use in school
zones, areas with speed limits of 30 miles per hour or
less, when a police officer is present with the camera
radar unit, when signs are posted on the highway
providing notice to a motorist that camera radar may
be used, and when the citation is accompanied by the
photograph produced by camera radar.
|
|
Virginia
|
- Establishes a pilot program allowing
specified localities to operate traffic light camera
radar monitoring systems at no more than 25
intersections within each locality.
- Specifies that these systems are
allowed in cities with more than 390,000 people,
cities with more than 200,000 and fewer than 225,000
people, and counties with an urban county executive
form of government.
|
|
Wisconsin
|
- Prohibits the use of photo radar by
law enforcement officers.
|
Photo radar to detect speeding can be operated automatically or by
law enforcement officers. The system combines a camera, computer
and radar. If a speeding car is detected, the camera takes a
picture of the driver and the license plate. Radar systems also
operate at busy intersections where cameras are installed to
apprehend drivers who run red lights. In some parts of the country
they also operate at rail crossings. The time, date and place of
the photo are recorded. The registered owner of the vehicle then
gets a ticket in the mail. Alleged violators usually can make an
appointment with law enforcement officials to view their pictures.
Supporters say the new traffic technologies such
as photo radar or red-light cameras cut down on highway accident
rates. Each year in the United States, more than 1 million motor
vehicle collisions occur at traffic signals, resulting in more
than a half million injuries and over 40,000 fatalities, according
to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Opponents point to potential violation of
motorists' civil liberties and privacy. "A bad idea whose
time has not come" is how Representative Marlin Schneider of
Wisconsin describes camera enforcement. Camera enforcement was
banned in Wisconsin in 1995 as a result of a Schneider amendment
to transportation legislation.
"With photo radar you have no right of
defense," Schneider says. "It's technology that triggers
the ticket."
New Jersey banned camera enforcement in 1992.
Steve Carellas, New Jersey coordinator for the National Motorists
Association, a nonprofit group that pushes for drivers' rights,
said the fight against camera enforcement is just one step in a
broader move against greater electronic surveillance on the
highway.
"We don't buy into the premise that by
slowing down traffic you're going to get more safety,"
Carellas said. Instead, Carellas argues that speed limits should
reflect what the majority of traffic is doing.
Fewer crashes at red lights would result from
improving the timing of lights so motorists are not frustrated by
stop-and-go conditions, Carellas said. "It's usually poor
timing of lights, poor road design that cause frustration,"
Carellas said. "If we want to move traffic, we should make
proper use of traffic control devices."
In reaction to these kinds of protests, Colorado
and Utah have legislated guidelines or restrictions on the use of
radar systems. Local jurisdictions appear likely to continue to
press ahead, however, with what some see as a constructive use of
technology to control traffic violations.
The greatest push seems to be toward red-light
systems. In Maryland, Senator Leonard Teitelbaum said he hears few
complaints these days about legislation that passed the General
Assembly last year on camera enforcement. That bill authorized law
enforcement agencies statewide to mail citations to owners of
motor vehicles recorded by monitoring systems as in violation of
traffic laws.
The lack of controversy was not always the case,
however. Teitelbaum said he at first encountered resistance from
people who said installing cameras at intersections to take
pictures of red-light runners was an intrusion on personal
privacy.
"I have not heard of any complaints in the
last six to eight months," Teitelbaum said. Drivers are
"more aggressive than they have ever been. I think people
have come to realize [camera enforcement] is the lesser of
evils."
Since passage of the law, at least two Maryland
counties--Howard and Montgomery--have begun using red-light camera
systems. Teitelbaum said he hopes to seek an attorney general's
opinion on whether legislative authority is needed to expand to
photo radar systems in the 1999 session of the General Assembly.
American Traffic Systems of Scottsdale, Ariz., a
leading manufacturer of photo radar systems, cites a number of
advantages in using a photo radar system, including:
- Freeing police officers for prevention of
more serious crime.
- Increasing driver awareness of the need to
control speeds and observe red lights.
- Reducing speed-related fatalities.
- Decreasing the number and severity of
crashes.
- Putting the cost of traffic-control programs
on the violator, not the taxpayers.
- Enforcing traffic laws without
discrimination.
- Increasing safety and efficiency by reducing
the number of high-speed chases, as well as the number of
call-outs required for traffic accident clean-up,
investigation and court testimony.
- Potentially lowering insurance costs for safe
drivers through overall reduction in collisions and related
injuries.
Traffic cameras have produced significant and
measurable traffic safety results worldwide for more than 25
years, according to American Traffic Systems. A total of 74
countries other than the United States--including many countries
in Europe and neighboring Canada and Mexico--use traffic cameras
to control speed and stop violations. Public opinion polls show
support for camera enforcement systems in these countries.
Supporters such as American Traffic Systems and
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, based in Arlington,
Va., say public opinion in this country also supports use of
camera enforcement as a way of reducing traffic accidents. A 1995
telephone survey sponsored by the institute found that 66 percent
of 1,006 people surveyed favored the use of red-light cameras,
compared with 28 percent opposed. Similar public opinion surveys
in European countries showed that drivers support or at least
accept these systems, according to a 1993 study published in Traffic
Engineering and Control.
As a result, traffic camera radar is a growth
industry. The number of U.S. cities using it has increased over
the past three years from just New York City to about two dozen
cities, according to Richard A. Retting of the Insurance
Institute. A number of those are in California, Arizona and
Colorado.
Communities adopting the systems generally
follow two paths. In the West, particularly in Arizona and
California, law enforcement agencies in communities using camera
enforcement have tended to follow a system in which a picture is
taken of the driver and the license plate, and a speeding or
red-light ticket is sent to the home of the registered owner. A
fine is levied and points are assessed against the driver's
record. In Arizona, camera enforcement occurs without state
legislation, while in California, a law makes sure that red-light
systems have proper authorization.
A number of California cities including San
Francisco, Beverly Hills, San Diego, Los Angeles and Sacramento,
have adopted or are moving to red-light systems. San Jose already
is using camera radar enforcement.
"It's working well, just as
predicted," said Senator Quentin Kopp, author of a 1995 bill
that established guidelines for California communities using
red-light enforcement. Kopp's bill required cities or counties
that seek to use cameras to announce the program at least a month
before it begins, deliver citations within 10 days after the
violation and give those cited the right to inspect their
photographs. A three-year demonstration program is expiring this
month. In May, the Legislature passed a bill that gives police,
with the approval of local government, the authority to use the
camera evidence to penalize stoplight violators.
Kopp said the legislation was necessary because
many communities were reluctant to institute camera enforcement
without some sort of state guidelines. Kopp said he'd recommend
other states move in the direction of greater camera enforcement.
"It's fail-safe as far as I'm
concerned," Kopp said. "That camera doesn't lie."
However, there were vocal critics in the
Legislature. During debate on the issue, Assemblyman Bernie
Richter said using automatic cameras was so controlling and
intrusive it reminded him of "Germany in the 1930s."
Richter also compared installation of cameras at intersections to
government filming of homosexuals who frequent public parks
seeking sex partners.
In California, the debate is likely to continue.
Steve Schnaidt, a principal consultant to the Senate
Transportation Committee, said separate legislation is pending
that would clarify the fact that the Legislature's endorsement of
red-light enforcement does not extend to speed enforcement using
photo radar with cameras.
Photo radar remains legal in California.
However, according to Schnaidt, "photo radar is an even
bigger bugaboo...It doesn't generate a lot of good PR." The
communities that use it are accused of having "a ticket
machine," Schnaidt said.
Controversy often seems to dog communities that
use photo radar. Albuquerque, New Mexico's plans to use photo
radar have come under fire. The motor vehicle division calls the
plan to use photo radar illegal and state officials said they
would not enforce fines, or assess penalty points against driver's
licenses, for speeders caught with the systems.
In Eastern cities, the tendency in camera
enforcement is not to assess points against driving records.
Instead, citations are sent to the address of the owner of the
vehicle, and a civil fine is levied. In Fairfax, Va., a $50 fine
is assessed on the owner of the vehicle.
Retting, who has studied the issue for more than
three years for the Insurance Institute and while working for the
city of New York, said this system can offer the advantage of
garnering less public wrath than those that impose points against
drivers.
Several western communities adopting traffic
camera enforcement report good results. In Scottsdale, Ariz.,
collisions in speed camera zones dropped 22 percent during the
first half of 1997. Tempe, Ariz., last year put in two photo radar
vans and two red-light cameras. Oxnard, Calif., as well as Fort
Collins, Colo., report success with their camera radar programs.
In Oxnard, red-light violations dropped about 42 percent several
months after cameras were introduced last year at intersections,
according to a study by the Insurance Institute. Boulder and
Denver, Colo., recently have started using photo enforcement to
catch speeders. The Denver suburb of Commerce City reported
violations dropped 81 percent after camera radar was instituted in
1996. Commerce City suspended camera radar use after a more
restrictive state law went into effect in 1997.
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia to
date have legislated in the area of traffic camera radar. This
legislation either places restrictions or conditions on the use of
camera radar or authorizes cities of a certain size to use it.
Utah and Colorado are examples of states using the more
restrictive approach. Colorado's General Assembly passed a law in
1997 limiting penalties municipalities can impose on speeders
caught by photo radar and barring the state's Department of Motor
Vehicles from assessing points for violations detected by camera.
| | |