Automated Traffic Enforcement: Responding to the Critics

Abstract

In many countries, traffic volumes and the number of drivers are rising faster than the availability of police officers whose routine duties include traffic law enforcement. Automated traffic enforcement, which produces photographic evidence of vehicles detected speeding or running red lights, can be used to supplement traditional enforcement. In the United States and Canada, a number of individuals and organizations have been very vocal in their opposition to automated traffic enforcement. They argue that automated enforcement programs are unnecessary for improving road safety, that they unfairly target relatively good drivers, and that they are motivated by revenue generation rather than safety. These arguments, however, often ignore the numerous peer-reviewed studies that have found real-world benefits in communities that use automated enforcement-cameras deter would-be violators, reduce crashes, and save lives. Solid, published research by a number of experts demonstrates that red light cameras save lives, and speed cameras substantially reduce speeding and speed-related crashes. Surveys of drivers and other road users indicate widespread support for automated enforcement. With regard to fairness, the objective of photo enforcement is to deter violations, not to surreptitiously catch violators. The more public the enforcement is, the better. If anything, automated enforcement programs improve fairness by reducing the potential for prejudicial enforcement. Finally, photo enforcement is intended to improve traffic safety by modifying the driver behaviors that lead to crashes, and it is reasonable to expect that people who break the law should pay for enforcing it. Ticket revenue should decline overtime as the cameras succeed in deterring would-be speeders and red light runners. This paper provides research-based responses to the critics' arguments as well as best practice guidelines for effective automated enforcement programs.