Issues Related to Red-Light Camera Enforcement Systems

The ITE 2008 Technical Conference and Exhibit was held in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWAs sponsorship of eight transportation professionals at the confirence assisted ITE in sharing information and continuing the dialogue generated on safety issues. During the closing

The number of fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals increased 18 percent between 1992 and 1998, far outpacing the 5-percent increase in all other fatal crashes. In 2005, red-light running caused more than 800 fatalities and 165,000 injuries in the United States. Although research shows no strong correlation between red-light-running violations and red-light-running crashes, it is the goal of traffic engineers and law enforcement officers to reduce the occurrences of these violations.

Red-light camera enforcement systems have been deployed in communities, but the jury is still out about the acceptability of such systems by motorists; the political and legal issues concerning successful implementation; and public education and awareness about the potential benefits.

This feature reports on a special session entitled "Photo Enforcement-A Snapshot," which was part of the Human Behavior/Multi-Modalism track at ITEs 2008 Technical Conference and Exhibit, held in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in Miami, FL, USA, from March 31-April 2, 2008. Other information was gathered from die literature to supplement information presented in the special session to generate this feature.

INTRODUCTION

Red-light running contributes to substantial numbers of motor vehicle crashes and injuries annually on a national basis. Retting et al. reported that drivers who run red lights are involved in an estimated 260,000 crashes each year, of which approximately 750 are fatal, and that the number of fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals increased 18 percent between 1992 and 1998, far outpacing the 5-percent increase in all other fatal crashes.1

Red-light running is a traffic behavior that is considered to be the leading cause of high-speed angle collisions at intersections. One of the approaches that can reduce red-light running is better enforcement at intersections. Red-light signal enforcement at an intersection requires extensive police monitoring occupying a large portion of local police resources. The idea of a camera enforcement system started to emerge as a potential costeffective tool because of the capability of monitoring the intersection 24 hours per day at reduced manpower.

There is an apparent resistance from the public to the wide implementation of camera enforcement systems because of concerns about privacy and other political issues. This feature discuses the red-light camera system, how it works, experience from system implementation and issues related to its application.

HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS

According to Nicholas J. Garber et al., the red-light-running camera enforcement system has many labels, including photo-red enforcement and automated enforcement.2 The system mainly consists of a camera that detects a vehicle running the red light and takes a photograph of the license plate of the violating vehicle that enters the intersection after the signal turns red. Usually the system begins after a given fraction of a second, called the "grace period."

The system also records other information about the violation, including time and date of the violation, speed of the violating vehicle, license plate number and the time elapsed after the onset of the red signal. All of this information is recorded along with the photo of the violating vehicle. The data then can be reviewed and validated, and the approved violation can be sent to the vehicle's registered owner.

Some other states promote the responsibility of the driver; a camera must face the front side of the vehicle to prove the identity of the driver. In such cases, the ticket issued by the system is equal to the ticket issued by a police officer on-site, including fine value, number of points placed on die driver license and license suspension.

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS (IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE)

The red-light camera enforcement system has been implemented in states including Virginia, Maine, Georgia, Arizona and Iowa. Many other countries, including Australia, Canada, Singapore and the United Kingdom, have been using the system as a possible countermeasure for the red-light-running problem.

The following section summarizes information about selected locations that have implemented the system and their findings. The Raghavan Srinivasan report on worldwide experience and the Iowa, Georgia and Virginia experiences were extracted from presentations made at the conference. The Arizona and Australia experiences were taken from supplemental readings in die literature.

Srinivasan presented a critical review of studies that have evaluated automated enforcement systems.3 He evaluated two technologies: speed enforcement and redlight cameras. For die red-light camera section, he focused on seven key studies. The major findings of his presentation were diat right-angle crashes decrease and rearend crashes increase with the use of these cameras. Furthermore, benefits anticipated from this system depend on several factors including the number of rear-end and right-angle crashes at any location.

In 1995, Virginia's General Assembly authorized the use of photo red-light monitoring as a demonstration program in 10 jurisdictions in the Commonwealth. The program was implemented in seven jurisdictions from 1997 through 2003. The Virginia Traffic Research Center at the Virginia Department of Transportation prepared several reports on the program and found that, in general, rear-end crashes increased, the number of crashes at the monitored intersections increased and, at some intersections, the number of injury crashes increased.

In his presentation, Khoury concluded that automated enforcement is a powerful tool in the highway safety toolbox, and a successful program should give strong consideration for the engineering and education aspects of implementing such technology.4

In Georgia, the system was authorized in 2003 and in a study conducted by the Red Light Camera Subcommittee of the Georgia section of ITE's safety committee. Although the sample size of the study was not statistically significant, the study found that rear-end crashes in general increased with the exception of one location and that the other aspects of safety varied from one location to another. The study showed that the system achieved effectiveness in some locations but had nearly no effect in other locations.

Clark indicated that busy intersections have large numbers of crashes and that annual crash frequency varies with or without red-light cameras.5 Traffic engineers need to be more involved in the selection of sites where these devices are to be installed and need to consider less involvement from vendors in this process. He concluded that yellow timing and clearance interval calculations must be taken seriously and done accurately.

In Iowa, the system was first implemented in 2004. Since then, three communities have implemented their systems. In a study by the Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University, it was found that the camera system is highly effective in reducing redlight-running related crashes and has succeeded in reducing rear-end crashes at the monitored intersections.

The study found that the monitored intersections observed a 40-percent reduction in overall crashes while intersections that did not have the system observed only a 12-percent crash reduction. Furthermore, the intersections with red-light cameras had a 90-percent reduction in red-light-running related crashes while the other intersections did not experience any reduction.

The study found that the monitoring system also was effective in reducing rear-end crashes; intersections within the system observed a 40-percent reduction in rear-end crashes while the control inter sections suffered a 29-percent increase in rear end-crashes. This is the first study to report the reduction in rear-end crashes as a measure of effectiveness for the red-light camera system.

In Arizona, a study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the red-light camera system. The study found that the intersection with red-light cameras showed a decrease in angle crashes resulting from red-light running and an increase in rearend crashes. However, the study also stated that many confounding factors relate to safety issues, and the red-light trend at intersections with no red-light monitoring cameras might observe a reduction in numbers of crashes related to red lights because of what is known as the spillover effect. The study also suggested that the effect of red-light cameras should be evaluated as a system of intersection performance rather than intersection by intersection.7

A study conducted in Australia compared five years before the red-light camera system was implemented with the five years after system implementation. The study did not find any overall reduction in the number of crashes resulting from the system. Low crash sites suffered an increase in the crash rate and high crash sites experienced a decrease in the number of crashes. There was a significant increase in rear-end crashes.8

Most of the studies agreed that redlight cameras increased rear-end crashes (except the study in Iowa). Although some of them reported effectiveness in reducing red-light related crashes, other studies reported very little or no improvement. It is to be noted that some states treat the citation differently by holding the driver responsible for the violation rather than the vehicle's registered owner, enabling legal treatment of a camera citation as if a police officer issued an on-site citation. Most other red-light camera systems send the citation to the vehicle's registered owner regardless of who was driving the car.

POLITICAL ACCEPTABILITY AND LEGAL ISSUES

The use of a red-light camera system to cite motorists for violating a red light requires legal issues to be addressed by the local authorities in each community to organize the operations and the boundaries of operating the system. "Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras," by FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, addresses the legal requirements for the red-light camera system.9 Some of the issues highlighted by the publication include privacy, citation distribution and types of penalties. These issues should be thoroughly addressed and resolved prior to system start-up.

At the present time, two approaches have been adopted by states in the deployment and operation of red-light camera systems:

* Driver responsibility: Where a law enforcement officer alleges a driver has committed a violation and issues a citation, there should be photographic evidence that allows the driver to be identified. This requires that one or more red-light camera(s) be installed at the site in strategic locations so that a frontal view of the vehicle is recorded as it runs the red light. The recorded view should allow the driver and vehicle identities to be clearly determined. If the recorded view of a driver is obstructed or not clear, no citation should be issued. Additionally, a method should be provided through which the registered owner can certify that he or she was not the driver at the time of the violation.

In states where red-light cameras are applied as described above, red-light violations recorded by red-light cameras are considered moving violations with citations carrying the same penalties as citations issued by law enforcement officers, including points and holds on vehicle registration or driver license renewals for unpaid fines.

* Registered owner responsibility: Where the registered owner is responsible for the citation, only photographic evidence that identifies the vehicle and its license number is required. Typically, states where redlight cameras have been adopted in this manner have enacted legislation at the state level that authorizes the use of red-light cameras or permits local agencies to enact local ordinances for use of red-light camera systems.

Because the system photographs need to be thoroughly reviewed by a police officer before issuing the ticket, such as in North Carolina, it was reported that in the first year of system implementation, only 40.3 percent of the vehicles caught on camera were issued a ticket.10 This number should be considered a reasonable estimate of the percentage of citations that can be issued from the system.

Some of the legal issues related to the use of red-light cameras as stated by FHWA include:

* authentication of photographs;

* chain of evidence of photographs;

* compliance with enabling statutes;

* foundation: device reliability (maintenance, checks for accuracy, training of personnel involved in the process);

* misuse or dissemination of photographs;

* municipal drafting, notice-compliance with applicable state rules for service;

* proper notice of use of photo redlight enforcement (signs); and

* standing-who can bring an action, when and where.

Most of the legal issues relate to the right of authorities to issue a ticket based on a photo versus direct citation by a police officer. This belief of unfair citation may lead to more court challenges and may increase the burden on police officers because they will be required to appear at court hearings. Unless this issue is resolved and the public is educated about the fairness of the system and how the citation system works, authorities risk increasing the burden on police officers.

"The Red Light Running Crisis," by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, included the following statement: "We are told to accept the idea that our laws should be administered by machines-not human beings-because it is a matter of safety. We must accept this expansion of government and this Orwellian threat to our privacy because cameras are the solution to the so-called red light running crisis."11

Such a statement shows the public concern about the idea of issuing citations based only on computer decisions. The public should be made fully aware that the citations are issued by a police officer after reviewing the photos and confirming that there is hard evidence of the violation.

CONCLUSION

Since the studies proving a significant decrease in the number of crashes as a result of the use of the red-light camera system, there has been a growing question about the validity of implementing the system and whether it is just a way to tax the motorist rather than promoting safety. Some studies have associated the cameras with a significant increase in the number of rear-end crashes. None of the studies have tried to draw a conclusion about the system effectiveness based on the circumstances during which the system was implemented. Such a study could classify the intersections and situations where redlight cameras are effective, leading to better implementation of the system.

Using the red-light camera system is associated with numerous legal and privacy concerns that should be addressed, and the public should be educated about how the system works before it is implemented. It should also be made clear to the public that the cameras are a way to help police officers monitor the intersection more extensively and that the system dose not issue tickets on its own.

Although very few studies reported benefits from red-light camera systems, they should not be discarded altogether. Studies should try to identify when it is justified to use the cameras to achieve better driving conditions for road users.