Getting Traffic Enforcement Right

When cities across America adopted Vision Zero goals to eliminate traffic deaths, many struggled to translate ambitious targets into measurable progress. Despite infrastructure investments and education campaigns, traffic fatalities continue rising in most U.S. cities, with more than 40,000 deaths annually. Now, as traditional enforcement resources are stretched thin, municipal leaders are taking a fresh look at automated safety cameras and incorporating lessons learned about what works and what doesn't.

Currently 19 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that permit the use of automated speed cameras, while 22 states and D.C. have enacted laws permitting red-light camera use, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.

That said, not every program achieves a successful rollout or long-term impact. Success requires thoughtful implementation that prioritizes community engagement, equity and transparency over quick fixes or revenue generation.

The growing adoption of speed and red-light camera programs across the U.S. comes as data shows an impact in reducing dangerous driving. New York City has seen more than a 94percent reduction in speeding in camera-enforced areas. With California's AB 645 pilot program underway, cities like San Francisco are building new models of community-first enforcement prioritizing equity, transparency and measurable safety outcomes.

LEARNING FROM PAST MISTAKES

The automated enforcement industry has not always succeeded. Early programs often were perceived as prioritizing revenue generation over safety outcomes. In 2008, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano proposed expanding a speed camera program statewide, including major highways, to help fill a budget shortfall. This resulted in significant public backlash, including a tragic attack on a camera technician. Gov. Jan Brewer, her successor, eliminated highway cameras in 2010, citing concerns about the program being primarily revenue-focused rather than safety-focused.

These experiences taught us important lessons. Sustainable programs require community buy-in, transparent processes and a clear focus on safety rather than revenue. The most successful initiatives today reflect this evolution in approach.

THE CALIFORNIA MODEL: EQUITY AND TRANSPARENCY FIRST

California's AB 645 pilot program represents the industry's most progressive framework to date, with strict equity and transparency guidelines, including community advisory boards, data-driven camera placement and public reporting.

San Francisco started by identifying the most hazardous intersections, then added a layer by looking at where the most vulnerable pedestrian populations are located, including schools and senior centers. Finally, the city worked to ensure that cameras were distributed across multiple neighborhoods to encourage behavior change citywide by identifying 33 locations for initial deployment.

One lesson we've learned from the past is that years of underinvestment in infrastructure for lower-income areas has often led to high speeds and a lack of traffic-calming measures in these regions, which can drive up the number of speed-related accidents. As one advocate noted, residents in areas with high crash rates often ask, "Instead of putting cameras in our community, why don't you invest in sidewalks and crosswalks?" This point highlights that crash data alone needs consideration in a broader context when planning a new camera-based enforcement program.

For an effective rollout, communities need to keep the following in mind:

1. Lead with safety, not revenue. Frame programs around protecting vulnerable road users, especially children, elderly residents and disabled community members. These populations are the most likely to be victims of traffic violence. Revenue should never be the primary motivation.
2. Conduct extensive community outreach and engagement. Communities need opportunities to provide input before implementation, not just information about what will happen.
3. Ensure geographic equity. Distribute cameras based on safety data while considering community investment patterns. Avoid concentrating enforcement in any single neighborhood.
4. Implement clear signage. Effective warning signs give drivers an opportunity to slow down before reaching camera locations. If drivers are surprised to receive a violation due to unclear signage, they may think that revenue is a higher priority for the agency than improving safety.
5. Plan for sustainability. Consider long-term community acceptance, ongoing education needs, and integration with broader safety initiatives. Use reporting to publicize safety improvements.

MEASURING SUCCESS: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Having worked in performance management since earning my master's degree in public administration at Arizona State University, I've seen government agencies increasingly tasked with proving program effectiveness. Back then, I was asked by this outlet if the idea of “performance management” could ever be adopted by public agencies. My first employer was well-known as a leader in taking a results-based approach, and I quickly learned to look at inputs, outputs, interim outcomes and ultimate results to determine success.

Today, performance management is a key requirement of any new program, and government agencies must create more data showing the results of their programs as constituents and policy leaders demand proof of success.

Agencies reporting on the effectiveness of automated enforcement can use the following metrics to evaluate results:

• Safety performance metrics — Collision reduction rates at camera-enforced locations, injury severity reduction in monitored zones, pedestrian and cyclist incident and fatality rates, and speed compliance improvements
• Behavioral change indicators — Repeat violation rates, average speed reductions in enforcement zones, volume of violations over time, and speed reduction changes
• Community impact measurements — Public satisfaction surveys and community feedback, geographic distribution of citations to ensure equitable enforcement, and appeal and contest rates

Municipal leaders should publish performance reports that include some of these metrics alongside narrative explanations of trends and improvement actions. This transparency builds community trust and demonstrates a genuine commitment to safety outcomes rather than revenue generation.

ADDRESSING COMMON CONCERNS

Privacy and fairness concerns deserve serious attention. Modern programs address these by imposing civil rather than criminal penalties, lower fine structures and income-based adjustments for vulnerable populations. California's program starts speeding fines at $50, with options for community service or reduced penalties based on income. The objective is to ensure that penalties are meaningful, but won’t impact someone’s ability to get to work or impose harsh criminal penalties.

Part of the approach is to adopt a civil violation program that does not require a facial image of the driver, while ensuring that there is accountability and due process. This also avoids rewarding unsafe behavior like driving with a mask on.

BUILDING LONG-TERM SUCCESS

Successful automated enforcement requires ongoing community engagement, transparent reporting and adaptive management. Programs should regularly publish safety outcomes, violation trends and community impact data. This transparency builds credibility and demonstrates genuine commitment to safety over revenue.

Performance management systems should track not just citation volume but meaningful safety improvements. When communities see measurable reductions in crashes, injuries and dangerous driving behaviors, public support grows. Conversely, programs that fail to demonstrate clear safety benefits risk losing community trust and political support.

The most effective programs also integrate with broader Vision Zero initiatives, combining enforcement with infrastructure improvements, education campaigns and policy changes. Cameras complement but cannot replace comprehensive safety planning.

As more communities consider automated enforcement, the lessons from early implementations provide clear guidance. When cities prioritize community engagement, equity and transparency, automated cameras become powerful tools for protecting vulnerable road users and creating safer streets for everyone.

ABOUT VERRA MOBILITY

Verra Mobility is a global leader in smart transportation technology, dedicated to building safer streets and healthier communities. In partnership with governments, law enforcement, and school districts, the company delivers turnkey road safety programs backed by compliance, expert support, and public education to improve driver behavior, reduce crashes, and save lives.