Traffic Enforcement Cameras

Traffic enforcement cameras are devices that can be mounted next to public streets or used by traffic enforcement officers to photograph and detect various types of violations of traffic law, including speeding and traffic signal violations. Automated traffic enforcement cameras can be equipped with devices that allow the camera to read and record license plate numbers on passing vehicles, which can then be used to automatically issue violations, bills for unpaid tolls, or other traffic fines through the mail. The use of traffic enforcement cameras has become controversial due to claims that automated law enforcement violates the principles of due process. Other criticisms involve claims that automated enforcement is motivated by financial gain rather than legitimate public interest.

Brief History

The Dutch company Gatso, run by members of the Gatsonides family, debuted the first device capable of measuring the speed of a passing object in 1958, calling the device a "Gatsometer." In the mid-1960s, Gatso introduced the first automated red-light cameras that could take photos of vehicles that proceeded across an intersection in violation of a red light. The Gatso company was also responsible for the first radar-equipped traffic cameras, introduced in the 1970s.

The United States began using photo-radar enforcement programs in the late 1980s, though this equipment was generally used by police officers to enhance traffic control. In the 1990s, several states began using automated traffic enforcement systems. License plate recognition programs were first instituted in Europe in the 1980s and were gradually integrated into traffic enforcement systems worldwide. License plate recognition uses digital cameras to photograph and then identify vehicles from their license plate images.

Overview

In the United States, there are two primary uses for traffic enforcement cameras: to detect violations of red lights at intersections and to identify vehicles traveling over set speed limits. A smaller but growing number of traffic enforcement cameras and other devices are used to monitor the illegal use of "bus zones" and stop sign violations and to record license plate numbers in order to process bills for unpaid tolls.

Red-light cameras are specifically designed to activate when a vehicle crosses an intersection in violation of a red light. According to the World Population Review, in 2024, twenty-three states had red light cameras. Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina allow them only in certain jurisdictions. These states allow them to be used throughout the state: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Twelve states do not allow red light cameras.

Speed cameras measure the velocity of passing vehicles and record license plate numbers so that citations can be issued to vehicles that violate established speed limits. The World Population Review reported in 2024 that of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 22 states permitted the use of speed cameras, 19 had no legislation regarding their use, and 10 prohibited their use.

A study published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board in 2024 found that speed cameras reduced the number of crashes and fatalities on Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia, one of the country's most dangerous roadways. Researchers estimated that the cameras prevented 15 to 20 crashes per month and about one death per month. When comparing the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities on similar roadways, they found that the number of crashes was 1.5 times higher, the number of injuries was 1.7 times higher, and the number of deaths was 2.1 times higher.

While traffic enforcement cameras reduce right- and left-angle collisions, some studies have shown that rear-end collisions increase due to the propensity for drivers to quickly brake when entering an area patrolled by red-light or speed cameras. A 2014 study in Chicago indicated that traffic cameras reduce injuries by 15 percent for accidents occurring at right angles, but they led to a 22-percent increase in injuries from rear-end collisions. The study indicated a 5-percent overall increase in traffic-related injuries after instituting the camera enforcement program.

Some opponents argue that the use of traffic camera systems has been motivated by revenue rather than safety concerns. According to the Fines and Fees Justice Center in 2024, during the first nine months of 2023 in New York City, speed cameras issued more than 4.4 million violations, resulting in $223 million in fines.

The duration of yellow lights in a traffic signal has been shown to correlate with the frequency of red-light violations. US PIRG found that, in some cases, traffic camera companies have pressured state governments to reduce the timing of yellow lights, which some argue effectively creates "speed traps" that ensnare drivers with unexpectedly short warning lights and therefore earn more revenues for the states and traffic camera companies. The National Motorists Association (NMA) argues that lengthening yellow lights would be more effective in reducing traffic violations than automated enforcement does.

One prominent case involving corporate influence on state policy occurred in 2010 in the California city of Loma Linda, where the city council attempted to remove red-light cameras but was told by the company providing the technology, Redflex Traffic Systems, that Loma Linda would be liable for $534,558 in early termination penalties. The city council argued that the use of the red-light cameras had not produced a measurable increase in safety. However, the city instituted a one-second increase in the timing of yellow lights across the city, resulting in an 80-percent reduction in left-turn violations and a 92-percent reduction in straight-through traffic violations.

Another source of controversy involving traffic cameras concerns whether automated enforcement is a violation of constitutional rights. In a 2012 article in US News, National Motorists Association president Gary Biller summarized this position with the argument that traffic cameras do not provide a "certifiable" witness to the alleged violation, thus preventing the defendant with the right to cross-examine his or her accuser. The argument that automated enforcement systems constitute a violation of due process was one of the justifications given in the introduction of Ohio State House Bill 69, which proposed banning the use of speed and red-light cameras in Ohio. Legislation proposing bans on automated traffic cameras has also been proposed, and in some cases accepted, in other states and cities, including several jurisdictions in California.

Other legal arguments against the use of traffic enforcement cameras include the argument that the cameras cannot positively identify the driver of a vehicle and might therefore issue a violation to a person who is not guilty of driving the vehicle that registered the violation. Opponents also argue that representatives of the companies managing traffic enforcement systems are rarely made available in traffic court, thus constituting a further violation of due process laws that guarantee the right to confront an accuser in the case of legal citations or violations.

Bibliography

Biller, Gary. "Red-Light Cameras about Revenue, Not Safety." US News. US News and World Report, 14 May 2012. Web. 9 June 2015.

"Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead." US PIRG. United States Public Interest Research Group, Oct. 2011. PDF file. 9 June 2015.

"Caution: We're Driving the Wrong Way on Automated Traffic Enforcement." Fines and Fees Justice Center, Jan. 2024, finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2023/12/Driving-the-Wrong-Way-5.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb. 2025.

Dade, Corey. "What’s Driving the Backlash against Traffic Cameras." NPR. Natl. Public Radio, 22 Feb. 2012. Web. 9 Jun 2015.

Guerra, Erick, et al. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Speed Cameras on Philadelphia’s Roosevelt Boulevard." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2678, no. 9, 27 Feb. 2024, doi.org/10.1177/03611981241230320. Accessed 26 Feb. 2025.

"History." Gatso USA. Gatso USA, 2015. Web. 9 June 2015.

Kedmey, Dan. "Red Light Cams Linked to Increased Rear-End Collisions in Chicago." Time. Time, 20 Dec. 2014. Web. 9 June 2015.

Ludlow, Randy. "Cities Using Traffic Cameras Would Lose State Funding in House GOP Budget." Dispatch. Columbus Dispatch, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 9 June 2015.

Mallory, Dale. "Traffic Enforcement Cameras Violate Due Process Rights: Ohio Rep. Dale Mallory." Cleveland. Northeast Media Group, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 June 2015.

"Red Light Cameras by State." World Population Review, 2024, worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/red-light-cameras-by-state. Accessed 26 Feb. 2025.

"Red Light Running." IIHS. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute, n.d. Web. 9 June 2015.

Wilson, Kea. "Is Automated Enforcement Making US Cities Safer or Just Raising Revenue?" Streetsblog USA, 20 Mar. 2024, usa.streetsblog.org/2024/03/20/is-automated-enforcement-making-u-s-cities-safer-or-just-raising-revenue. Accessed 26 Feb. 2025.