The controversy, however, has not died down. Some opponents insist the city's primary motivation is to fill its coffers--not improve safety. Others say an electronic-enforcement system that holds the vehicle's owner liable for a ticket, regardless of who was driving, violates due-process rights. But judges have dismissed those concerns, and the cameras are proliferating. In 1999, there were 10 of them at D.C. intersections; since then the number has quadrupled.
That's what's been happening in most of the localities that have adopted electronic enforcement: Courts have been reluctant to interfere. "The big picture is pretty stable in terms of constitutionality," says Richard A. Retting of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. On the other hand, strained government budgets and occasional technical glitches have given critics the opportunity to refocus the fight on the revenue and reliability fronts--and to win some victories.
Red-light cameras have been in use in Europe since the late 1970s, but they didn't make their American debut until 1993, when New York City started using them. The existence of a problem was hard to dispute--red-light running is estimated to cause more than 200,000 injuries and 1,000 deaths annually in the United States. The fatality rate is highest in the West, and San Francisco and several other California cities were among the earliest to join New York in adopting the technology.
The cameras, usually mounted on traffic-signal stanchions, are now at work in more than 80 cities in 20 states, many as a result of local ordinances. Both Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Philadelphia Mayor John Street gave them the green light this summer. In addition to the safety factor, advocates make the case that the automated cameras allow justice to be blind by nabbing violators without any human bias that could come from traffic cops watching an intersection.
Nevertheless, new proposals to install red-light cameras continue to generate howls of protest. Legislation to allow them statewide was shot down this year after contentious debates in Hawaii, Texas and Virginia. Laws in Alaska, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah and Wisconsin effectively prohibit their use altogether.
BIG BROTHER
This summer, when red-light surveillance was under consideration in Providence, Rhode Island, the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called it a "gimmick...that erodes, in subtle ways, our basic rights." At a public hearing in Providence, citizens expressed fears about the use of "Big Brother" tactics to catch scofflaws. After a lengthy discussion, the city council approved a red-light camera ordinance, the first in New England. But it also mandated that violations recorded on camera could not be made part of a motorist's permanent driving record or used by insurance companies to increase premiums.Some of the concerns about red-light cameras may stem in part from misconceptions about how the system works. Many citizens assume that the cameras run all the time and that the film is reviewed periodically to catch violators. In fact, the cameras are activated only when cars cross an underground sensor after the light turns red. The rest of the time, nothing is recorded.
The ACLU says it doesn't object, in principle, to the use of red- light cameras to enforce specific traffic violations. But the group worries about systems that simply target the owner of a vehicle, without requiring proof of who is behind the wheel. To avoid this problem, Oregon's cameras not only capture a car's license plate but also take a close-up of the driver's face on digital or 35mm film. Most states don't use this additional technology.
On the other hand, studies in California have shown that the registered owner of the car turns out to be the driver 90 percent of the time. The other 10 percent are still free to contest the ticket in court. Proponents say this makes red-light cameras no different from standard police ticketing procedure. "The camera assumes you're guilty the same way police assume you're guilty," Retting says. "The court assumes innocence. There is still definitely a due-process element."
SAFETY OR MONEY?
Meanwhile, as cities find themselves in tight fiscal straits, another argument against electronic surveillance is being heard increasingly often: that it is a thinly disguised ploy to raise revenue. The size of the fines--ranging from $50 to more than $300 in many places--has served only to heighten the suspicions.Some local governments have all but admitted this. In Providence, which confronted a $19 million budget gap for 2003-04, Mayor David N. Cicilline proposed installing cameras at 25 intersections and fining red-light violators $75. Cicilline didn't even bother to wrap his revenue-raising strategy in public safety terms--a degree of candor that earned accolades even from the ACLU.
More often, public officials get caught up in a red-light revenue "gotcha" game. Last fall, the Mid-Atlantic division of the American Automobile Association withdrew its support for D.C.'s camera enforcement program after Mayor Anthony A. Williams conceded that his proposal to expand the number of cameras was about both "money and safety." Lon Anderson, AAA's director of public and government relations, says, "it's clear that money, and not law enforcement, is in the driver's seat."
The cost of the cameras, which ranges from $30,000 to $50,000 apiece, not including installation fees, is also a factor in local government decisions about whether to add more. As a money-saving move, some cities are installing fake red-light cameras to trick drivers into thinking they are under surveillance. These cost around $6,000 each. New York City alone has 200 fakes, but it is also preparing to double the number of real cameras from 50 to 100.
In general, the more intersections being covered, the greater the revenue potential. A big city can recoup its costs faster than a smaller jurisdiction can. But the way the cameras are used also makes a difference. In its first year, the red-light camera program in Portland, Oregon, generated only about 7,000 of the 25,000 tickets officials had projected. But that was in large part because many of the cameras weren't operating correctly. More than half the photos taken did not clearly show the driver or license plate and had to be thrown out.
YELLOW TRICKERY
There's another concern that goes beyond mere technical glitches. A local government--or the company operating its red-light cameras--that really wanted to maximize revenue could increase the number of violations by manipulating the yellow-light time between green and red. An unusually short yellow light catches more drivers in the intersection after the change to red.This issue has been the focus of successful lawsuits in several major municipalities. San Diego launched a camera program in 1996 but suspended it in 2001 amid complaints about yellow-light tactics and an incentive system that rewarded a private vendor for each violator it photographed. A judge ruled that the cameras were legal but also dismissed nearly 300 tickets after declaring that the contractor had too much control. This past summer, San Diego reinstated an overhauled system that includes longer yellow lights, an extra camera to photograph a rear-view picture of the vehicle, and a contract that pays a new vendor a flat rate per camera instead of a percentage of each ticket. Beginning in January, California state law will require that cities--not vendors--manage red-light camera programs and ban citation incentives to private contractors.
Safety issues related to yellow-light timing also are being raised. A short switchover from yellow to red can lead drivers to slam on their breaks to avoid going through the red light and facing a hefty fine. This is thought by some to be a factor in the growing number of rear- end collisions occurring at intersections that use the cameras. New York and many other cities have seen some evidence of the rear-end crash phenomenon as they have implemented their red-light camera programs.
Some communities report a 5 percent increase in rear-end collisions but a reduction of as much as 68 percent in side-impact collisions, which are more likely to be fatal. "We do see an increase in rear-end, low-impact collisions after a camera is just installed," says John Petrozza, president of Mulvihill Intelligent Control Systems, which operates New York City's program. "After a year or so, the number of rear-end collisions drops down to where they were before the camera installation, after the public has adjusted their driving speed to allow for unabrupt braking." What's more important, he argues, is a measurable reduction in total red-light violations, particularly side- impact collisions, and these always decline with electronic enforcement.
Even as red-light cameras remain a contentious issue, police departments around the country are moving ahead with a new application: using photo-radar cameras to catch speeders. Since mid- 2001, when the District of Columbia installed photo-radar, speeding in targeted enforcement zones has dropped from 31 to 7 percent of all vehicles--and the city has collected $30 million in fines. With results like those, it seems certain that the deployment of automated traffic-enforcement cameras will continue--and that their detractors will remain as well.
