Newsroom  
 
The Problem
Get the Facts
Research & Statistics
Newsroom
Videos
Crash Survivors
Join the Campaign
Promotional Materials
In Your Area
Links
About Us
Support
Contact Us
Home

 

Red Light Running and Photo Enforcement - Overview

 

1) RESEARCH

Crash Reductions Associated with Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, CA – Rettting, et.al. on behalf of the Insurance Institute for Highway and Auto Safety, April 2001

  • Red light camera enforcement reduced the number of injury crashes at signalized intersections by 29%.
  • Crash reductions were found on a citywide bases, not just at photo enforced intersections.

Assessment of Red Light Running Camera Enforcement Technologies – Sisiopiku, et.al., Michigan State University

  • Photo enforcement leads to an 18% to 70% reduction in red light running crashes.
  • Photo enforcement leads to a 33% to 77% reduction in red light running violations.

Red Light Running in Iowa: The Scope, Impact and Possible Implications – Center for Transportation Research, Iowa State University, for the Highway Division of the Iowa Department of Transportation

  • Numerous studies and programs document the benefits of photo enforcement programs, including reduction in red light running violations and crashes, at target and adjacent intersections; less need for manned enforcement; and the potential for additional revenue. It also does not require the pursuit and stopping of offenders at the scene, which is dangerous in high-volume areas.
  • Initiation of photo enforcement programs can be costly for an individual community.
  • Public awareness and concern regarding red light running is high and support for photo enforcement is strong.

2) ENDORSEMENTS

Some Facts About Red Light Cameras, Dr. Doug Roberson, Director, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, January 8, 2004.

  • During the 1990s, 147 people died in North Carolina in car crashes resulting from red light violations, placing the state 20th in the nation.
  • “Catching red light runners using the traditional law enforcement technique of observation, chase, and citation is both difficult and dangerous. Using red light cameras is a safe and effective way to enforce traffic laws and protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.”

Statements of Support for Red Light Camera Programs

  • The International Association of Chiefs of Police has issued a resolution in support of red light cameras
  • The National Safety Council has issued a statement of support for red light cameras

3) CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Safety Focus, V1.1, May 2002. The Cameras Are Watching — And It’s a Good Thing, Dr. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law

  • Cameras are located in public places and observe only what any passerby or police officer could lawfully see, so they are not an invasion of privacy.
  • Cameras do not violate the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) – the Supreme Court has recognized that observing things in plain public view isn’t a “search” at all, much less an unreasonable one.
  • Cameras are less intrusive than traditional policing.
  • Cameras are no different than other policing tools, such as guns, communication systems or wiretaps – they can be abused, but we accept the risk, and set up safeguards to control the risk, because they are valuable tools.

Chicago Lawyer, January 2004. Crazy driversbetter watch out for these new cameras, Patrick A. Tuite

  • There are no constitutional violations in having cameras at intersections – no one is being detained or searched.

The ACLU and Photo Enforcement

  • “The National Capital Area Chapter ACLU does not oppose the use of cameras to detect those breaking motor vehicle laws…”

Emelike U. Agomo, et.al. vs. D.C. Superior Court, July 12, 2003

  • Photo enforcement does not violate due process because the opportunity for a hearing is always made available.
  • Photo enforcement passes the Matthews test, an accepted test for procedural due process.
  • “The plaintiffs argue, without legal support, that the District of Columbia is using the camera system to achieve a financial windfall for the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that there are a high number of persons photographed running traffic signals or operating at excessive speeds is an example of the magnitude of the problem facing city officials trying to correct a growing situation.”

Rutgers Race & the Law Review, 2001. Stopping a Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb

  • Photo enforcement provides a fairer and more equitable means of enforcing traffic laws than manned enforcement.

4) OPINION

Chapel Hill Herald, September 2, 2003. Keep eye out for red-light cameras, Catherine Wright

  • “I’m tired of I'm tired of being afraid to go on green because somebody might hit me.”
  • The first two intersections where chosen based on a study of red light violations, as well as traffic volumes, accident reports and speeding violations

The Daily Tarheel, November 11, 2003. Work in progress, Editorial

  • “While the council should monitor the use and effectiveness of the cameras, it should not stop their installation with out a thorough review.”
  • The SafeLight program has not generated enough data to determine what action should be taken.
  • Officials will never know if Chapel Hill could see the same safety benefits as other jurisdictions if the program is stopped before adequate research is performed

back to top