Traffic Cameras:
Protecting Our Streets or Invading Our Privacy
By Sean Klein
Cameras emerge as an automated enforcement system:
It used to be that drivers would scan the road for police vehicles or slow down when coming around bends in the road or up to intersections in hopes of avoiding falling in police "traps" to catch speeders. The police would set up along the side of the road and shoot each driver, or to make it more controversial, only drivers that they wanted to, with their radar guns and pull over and ticket any one that was speeding. It used to be that running a red light meant slowing down just enough to make sure there were no cop cars around and then continuing on through the red light.
Those days are gone. Although they have been used for about the last twenty five years, automated enforcement systems are becoming more and more common everyday. Today they can be found in most big cities across the country and are gaining popularity with law enforcement officials. Cameras were first used in order to try to deter people from running red lights. The cameras were installed at busy intersections to catch all the violators. As technology advanced the use of the systems also advanced and they were applied to many more areas of traffic enforcement. Digital cameras and video cameras were developed. Red light runners (RLR) as well as speeders could now be caught with a picture. Speeding cameras were primarily used in school zones and construction zones in the hope that they would slow down speeders.
Proponents of the systems claimed that they lessen the number of accidents associated with speeding and running red lights. With this system there is no contact between the violators and law enforcement. The cameras snap a photo of the vehicle and possibly the driver and the ticket is sent through the mail to the owner of the vehicle. The photo records the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and possibly the speed and a copy is sent along with the citation to the owner. The system is operator by the vendor of the camera system not a law enforcement agency and it is up to there discretion as to who to issue the citations too. The company is usually paid by the state on a commission based on the number of tickets issued.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation there are 10 requirements that the automated enforcement system should meet:
*U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. "Red Light Cameras".
The fines that were assessed, which are based on photos or videos captured automatically when a vehicle enters the intersection after the signal has changed to red, range from $50 to $271 dollars. A portion of this fine went to the state while the private company received a percentage. The cameras used in the systems cost about $50,000 to $60,000, with installation, including detectors, equipment cabinet, and mounting pole, adding approximately an additional $25,000. Monthly operating costs are approximately $5,000. For a break down of the cost of tickets and the commission made by the companies in certain states, click the link below.
Although these technologies were initially applied only to busy intersections and school and construction zones, areas were it was important for drivers to slow down and observe the traffic laws, they are now being found everywhere along the roads. In one traffic camera project that has just gotten underway in Honolulu, Hawaii, traffic cameras may be found anywhere. The project involves a company that may place a van along any of Hawaii's main road ways. An operator sits in the back of the van and with a digital camera and snaps a picture of any one that he clocks speeding. In a case in Minnesota, drivers have to be careful not for cameras on the roads but in the air. Helicopters equipped with camera equipment are able to snap pictures of them from the air and all the drivers knows of it is that he receives a ticket in the mail with a picture of his car.
Here are pictures of the camera and the poles on which they are mounted at the intersection
Technology behind the cameras:
35mm/Wet Film
There are currently three different types of camera systems that are in use at different intersection around the country. The first and most common type used is the wet film or 35mm. This automated enforcement system places a 35mm camera at intersections normally to catch red light runners. Sensors are placed in the ground (either loop sensors or piezoe sensors) before the pavement marking that defines the intersection; this is usually the stop bar or a crosswalk. When the light turns into the red phase, the system is activated meaning that the camera is ready to take pictures of any vehicle that enters the intersection at this point.
In order to differentiate between vehicles that are running the red light and vehicles that might be caught in the intersection when it turns red, the system is usually set up with a "grace period". The common period is 3/10 of a second although an international standard of 1/2 of a second exists. The camera will not snap pictures until 3/10 of a second after the red phase of the light starts. There is also the possibility of cars turning right on red or cars attempting to stop that might set off the cameras. Because of this a minimum necessary speed is usually required to activate the system. This usually ranges from 15 to 20 miles per hour. Also the placement of the sensor is very important. In one case where this system was in use in Pasadena California, 95 percent of the pictures taken were of non-violating vehicles that were trapped trying to make a left turn in the intersection when the light turned red. The sensors were placed so that as they tried to continue to make the left turn and get out of the intersection, the automated enforcement was triggered and a picture was taken.
Diagram of how the loop sensors work
The cameras are usually located in a special unit placed on poles to try to protect them from both the elements as well as vandalism. These poles are set up in such a way that they allow access since the cameras need to be visited often. Usually on a daily basis someone needs to retrieve the exposed film from the day before and replace it with new film. The exposed film is then sent in to be analyzed and converted to a digital image. The manufactures of the automated enforcement technology claim that one camera is enough to cover four travel lanes coming through an intersection. However through experience it has been found that only for the three lanes can accurate and reliable enforcement be performed. But by having the loop detector only being used by the enforcement system and not for other traffic control system such as the signals, the reliability of the system is greatly improved.
The camera usually produces a black and white photo of cars caught in the intersection during red lights, however some systems might produce colored pictures. The color pictures, although they cost more, avoid some of the problems facing the black and white photos. In black and white photos it cannot be determined which signal is illuminated so there may be some doubt as to whether or not the light was actually red. It also does not show the color of the car being caught running the red light and drivers have gotten out of the citation based on the fact that it could not be proven that it was their car in the intersection. For each car that is caught there are at least two pictures taken and in some cases three are needed. The first picture taken catches the car before it actually enters the intersection and the light is already red. It must clearly show the pavement marking that defines the intersection in order to hold up in a court and the vehicle behind it while the light is red. The second pictures then shows the car a short time later in the intersection. The lapse time is commonly between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds. If a third picture is needed to identify the driver of the vehicle then it is taken as well. From the pictures, the license plate of the vehicle will be magnified in order to identify the owner of the vehicle and a citation is sent through the mail.
Digital
The second type of cameras used are a result of the quickly changing facing of video technology. Digital cameras have the ability to produce pictures with a higher resolution, more sharply detailed images of the vehicle, and are able to prevent reflections of headlights from smearing the image. Some manufactures claim that they are able to get a clear image of a car that is traveling over 200 miles per hour. The cameras can also take either black and white or colored pictures but the majority are in color. The setup for digital cameras is much like that for the wet film. They are stored in special boxes or the crossbars for the traffic signals and are connected to sensors found in the road. One slight difference in the setup between the two is that digital cameras require two sensors so that both the vehicles presence and speed can be detected. Because of this fact, these cameras are not only limited to red light runners but can also be used to identify speeders. They are activated just like the wet film cameras as well. So usually you will not be caught for speeding unless you also run a red light because the system is only triggered while the light is red.
The benefits of digital cameras over wet film besides that resolution and quality of the images is the ease in collecting and sending the data. The image that is taken by the camera can be electronically transmitted directly to be reviewed. This speeds up the time in which tickets can be sent out to the owners of the vehicles. It also cuts down on cost like those associate with film, processing, and the manpower of going out and retrieving and changing the film.
There are a couple of problems with the use of digital cameras. One is the fact that unlike with wet film, digital images are very easy to tamper with. This topic will be covered more in the ethical issues but it is important to point it out here. Another problem with this type of enforcement system is the fact that the cameras become inactive while they are capturing an image. This means that if there are multiple violator, the second or third car through the red light will not be caught because the camera is busy capturing the image of the first car.
Video
Many video cameras are in use around the country at this time, however, most of them are not used for enforcement activities. They are used o monitor traffic conditions and surveillance, incident reports, and crash reconstructions. But the use of video as an automated enforcement system is gaining popularity. Most video system are digital so they include all the advantages that go along with the digital still cameras. The quality of the picture is very high and the processing can be handled quickly and cheaply. The same problems also face the video camera that face the digital camera; lack of negatives and the ease of tampering with it.
There are some benefits that go along with the video cameras that were not seen in the other two systems. When the vehicle is approaching the intersection a brief video sequence is recorded. With this any subsequent violators may also be caught that would not have been caught with a still picture. And by determining the speed of the vehicle the drivers intentions can be predicted: whether he is planning to run the red light or attempting to slow down and stop for it. This may help to avoid sending out tickets to non-violators as well as keeping the intersections safer. If it is predicted that the driver is planning to run the red light, the system can trigger an "all-red signal" to prevent other vehicles from entering the intersection. This may not prevent the violation but it may mitigate the potential accidents that it would cause and lessen the number of intersection accidents.
Typical picture of a photo taken by a traffic camera
Professional issues facing the use of automated enforcement systems:
There are a number of professional issues that are raised in the use of traffic cameras to monitor motorists. Here are some of the main issues:
Does the use of such cameras cut down on the number of accidents caused by both speeders and red light runners?
The main argument for the use of these systems is not to generate revenue of the state or necessarily to punish those who are breaking the law. The big push for using them to cut down on the number of accidents so that injure and death that may be caused from such accidents can be avoided. It is estimated that running red lights kills 800 people every year in the U.S.. So on a professional level this is the main question as to whether or not the cameras should be used. . There is substantial literature documenting a significant decline in the number of vehicles committing traffic signal violations at enforcement sites, ranging from any where from 20% to 87% at different camera locations. So the cameras have been proven to cut down on the number of violators whether speeding or running red lights. However, according to a report by the Federal Highway Administration dated August 13, 2001, "the few independent analyses of the occurrence of crashes at these sites offer no definitive indication of whether the camera systems impact this important measure of transportation safety." A number of studies have been done and many showed immediate declines in the number of angled accidents at the intersection. However, at some sites there has also been an increased amount of reported rear end collisions. People are aware of the fact that there are cameras at the intersection so in order to avoid running some red lights they slam on their brakes and cause rear end accidents. In a number of studies, the long-term number of accidents seems to be unaffected will in others there is a reported decrease in accidents. For a table of violation and accident reductions at various sites around the country that uses RLR systems, click the link below:
Table 2. Violation and crash reductions for various RLR enforcement programs.
2. At what point in a driver breaking the law and deserves a ticket?
This is one of the points where the argument is very split. In the old fashion way (police pulling you over and writing you a ticket) it was up to the law enforcement officials discretion as to whether or not you were breaking the law and deserving of a ticket. Now it is up to a piece of machinery and that could lead to problems. For the red light runners it is not too much of an argument. If you ran the red light, then you are deserving of the ticket. If you can go to court and prove that it was not your car or the light was not red then you get off. But for the speeders it is a little different. Is going 48 in a 45 zone breaking the law. Usually in the old days, police would give you a little grace period; say 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. The cameras hypothetically snap a picture if you are going any amount over the speed limit. Some companies also claim to give a 10 mile per hour grace period but others do not. However some say this impartiality is good. Some claim police of stereotyping or profiling and only pulling over people they want to pull over. The camera system does not care what color you are or what type of car you drive; if you are speeding, you are busted.
Then of course there is always the fact that the technology may not be working as it is supposed to be. Some they have gone wrong in the camera either causing it to take pictures of non-violators or let violators go free.
Legal issues facing the use of automated enforcement systems:
1. Is the government invading on my right to privacy by placing cameras that take pictures of me on the road?
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to privacy from unreasonable intrusion by law-enforcement agents. That is clear so the question is whether or not the traffic cameras are "unreasonable intrusion". In 1967, in a landmark case, Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects our right to privacy in those things that we actually keep private and those which society generally regards as private. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). The automated enforcement cameras are not general surveillance cameras that observe everyone within range, but are designed only to capture photographic evidence of traffic law violations. The cameras are set up to let those are not breaking the law go free and not invading on their privacy. However when a law has been broken the camera is triggered. The same procedure is gone through as when you are pulled over by a police officer. He asks to see your license and calls in your plate numbers, basically the same thing that the camera does. So if your rights are not violated when the police officer does it then they are not when the camera catches you breaking the law. Those in favor of the cameras note that "opponents of photo enforcement raise the privacy issue with the general public, but not in court. This is very likely because the law is well settled that there is no privacy interest in what is routinely and regularly displayed in public." (http://www.carsafety.org/safety_facts/1)
2. Is the Fourteenth Amendment being violated?
Another big argument against the cameras is that it denies our right to face our accusers in court and to due process. This means that he must be notified immediately of what he is being accused and where it was allegedly committed. By just being sent a ticket in the mail, the opponents argue, these rights are being violated; you are presumed guilty until proving yourself innocent, which is a direct contradictions to our rights as American citizens. It is possibly to go to court and fight a ticket handed out by the camera but it is a lot of work and the way it is set up it is basically that you must prove yourself innocent of the charge instead of the state proving you guilty.
So
is it even legal for the government to place cameras on the roads.
According to the Federal Highway Administration "states with legislation
authorizing the use of photo or automated enforcement of red-light running (RLR)
include, but may not be limited to: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and the District of
Columbia. Some states (Ohio, for
example) have "home rule" wherein a local ordinance is all that is
needed to enact a camera enforcement program."
Traffic signal with sign letting drivers know they are being watched
Ethical issues facing the use of automated enforcement systems:
There are many ethical questions that arise from this argument of whether or not to use the automated enforcement systems. The main one would be the fact that the private companies that operate the systems are working on a commission. They are a business and the goal of any business is to make money. So this no longer becomes an issue of safety for the public but of money for the company. The more tickets they give out the more money they bring in. When the films are sent in for review or the digital images are gathered and reviewed the company is able to give out tickets to all of those individuals on the fact that their picture was taken because they were breaking the law. In the case of digital images, the picture may be tampered with to show guilt when the driver is real innocent or the reverse.
Here are a few ways of looking at the ethical issues of this topic:
Rights Perspective - The Fourteenth Amendment is being violated in assuming guilt based on the picture.
Fairness Perspective - Everyone that deserves a ticket will get a ticket instead of it being up to the discretion of the police officer.
Common Good Perspective - Accidents may decrease leading to less injuries and possibly deaths.
Stakeholders:
drivers
private companies that operate cameras
government
citizens (people may be injured if there are no cameras or may be falsely accused if there are)
Possible Action:
1. Cameras would be allowed to be used with out any further regulations on them.
Consequences - Accidents may be cut down and therefore it could lead to less traffic related injuries and deaths. It would also cause a rise in the number of tickets issued to red light runners and speeders but the number of violations would greatly decrease. The traffic laws would be better followed but people may have to give their feeling of privacy while they are driving.
Individual Rights/Fairness - The right to privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment would be sacrificed in order to better protect the public from traffic accidents.
Common Good - The private company is protected and allowed to continue business and angled accidents might be reduced. Citizens might feel like "big brother" is always watching.
2. Out law cameras and leave the law enforcement work to the police officers.
Consequences - People will continue to speed and run red lights without worrying about cameras. The trend of terrible accidents at busy intersections and streets where speeding is known to occur will continue. The government will be forced to find new ways to prevent accidents.
Individual Rights/Fairness - The rights to privacy and being innocent until proven guilty will be upheld. However, citizens may not be as safe from harm as they could be.
Common Good - The rights of drivers would be protected.
3. Allow cameras under certain circumstances
Consequences - The cameras could be used at busy intersections or school and construction zones to slow down drivers in these areas. However, ample signs must let drivers know they are being on tape if they violate the law. The cameras would not be allowed to be used outside of these zones so drivers would not have to worry that they could be watched anywhere by "big brother". Drivers at these points of conflict in traffic would be safer if accidents were decreased.
Individual Rights/Fairness - Placing the cameras in areas were they could help cut down on the number of accidents is protecting drivers and pedestrians. Citizens may be sacrificing some of there rights but by limiting the camera use in will still protects some rights.
Common Good - Injures and deaths resulting from accidents may decline and drivers will be forced to obey the traffic laws. Those guilty of breaking the laws will be fined.
Final Decision:
The most ethical choice in the area of automated enforcement technology would be action 3: allow camera use under certain circumstances. In school zones or construction zones where there are a lot of people by the sides of the roads and cars are continually stopping and going, the cameras could prevent accidents from happening. However, we do not have to always wonder who is watching us.
Sources
http://www.carsafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm#4
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13603.html
http://www.drivers.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?type=ART&id=000000344&static=1
"Cameras could be ticket for bad drivers.” The Honolulu Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaii. July 2, 2001.