User:VenturaHighway/Red light camera

A red light camera, also known as a red-light safety camera or an intersection safety camera, is a traffic enforcement camera that captures an image of a vehicle illegally passing through an intersection when the light is red. By automatically photographing vehicles that run red lights, red light cameras produce a record of evidence that assists authorities in their enforcement of traffic laws. Vendor systems vary, but usually the camera is triggered when a vehicle enters the intersection after the signal has turned red. Typically, a law enforcement official will review the photographic evidence and determine whether a violation occurred. Citations are then mailed to owners or drivers of the vehicles found to be in violation of the law. These cameras are used worldwide, in countries including: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore and the United States.

There is some debate about the use of red light cameras. Authorities cite public safety as the primary reason that the cameras are installed, however critics of red light cameras claim that their use is for financial gain and that they do not improve road safety. Studies have shown that using these cameras does not necessarily increase safety, in some cases accident rates have increased once they were installed.

History
Red light cameras were first developed in the Netherlands. Worldwide, red light cameras have been in use since the 1960s, and were used for traffic enforcement in Israel as early as 1969. The first red light camera system was introduced in 1965, using tubes stretched across the road to detect the violation and subsequently trigger the camera. In 1971 this was replaced with a loop mechanism that uses sensors on either side of the intersection. One of the first developers of these red light camera systems was Gatsometer BV.

The cameras first received serious attention in the US in the 1980s following a highly publicized crash in 1982, involving a red light runner who collided with an 18-month-old girl in a stroller (or "push-chair") in New York City. Subsequently, a community group worked with the city’s Department of Transportation to research automated law enforcement systems to identify and ticket drivers who run red lights. New York's red-light camera program went into effect in 1993. From the 1980s onward, red light camera usage expanded worldwide and one of the early camera system developers, Poltech International, supplied Australia, Britain, South Africa, Taiwan, the Netherlands and Hong Kong. American Traffic Systems (subsequently American Traffic Solutions) (ATS) and Redflex Traffic Systems emerged as the primary suppliers of red light camera systems in the US, while Jenoptik became the leading provider of red light cameras worldwide.

Initially, all red light camera systems used film, which was delivered to local law enforcement departments for review and approval. The first digital camera system was introduced in Canberra in December 2000, and digital cameras have increasingly replaced the older film cameras in other locations since then.

Usage
Red light cameras are typically installed in protective metal boxes attached to poles at intersections, which are often specifically chosen due to high numbers of crashes and/or red light running violations. Red light cameras detect when a vehicle has driven into the intersection after a traffic signal has turned red, via sensors in the road connected to computers, or system controllers, that then trigger the cameras. A signal from the sensors tells the high-speed cameras to take two photographs of the violation. The first photo typically shows the vehicle when it enters the intersection with the light showing red, and the second photo shows the rear of the vehicle when it is in the intersection.

Details that may be recorded by the camera system (and later presented to the vehicle owner) include: the date and time; the location; the vehicle speed, and the amount of time elapsed since the light turned red and the vehicle passed into the intersection. The violation is captured as a series of photographs or a video clip, or both, depending on the technology used, which shows the vehicle before it enters the intersection on a red light signal and its progress through the intersection. The data and images, whether digital or developed from film, are sent to the relevant law enforcement agency. There, the information is typically reviewed by a law enforcement official who determines if a violation occurred and, if so, approves issuing a citation to the vehicle owner who may challenge the citation. A few red light camera systems allow a "grace period" of up to half a second for drivers who pass through the intersection just as the light turns red.

United States
Since the early 1990s, red light cameras have been used in the United States in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Within each state the cameras may only be permitted in certain areas. For example, in New York State, the Vehicle and Traffic Law permits red light cameras only within cities with a population above 1 million. In Florida, a state law went into effect on July 1, 2010, which allows all municipalities in the state to use red light cameras on all state-owned right-of-ways and fine drivers who run red lights, with the aim of enforcing safe driving, according to then-Governor Charlie Crist. The name given to the state law is the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, named for a man who was killed in 2003 by a motorist who ran a red light. In addition to allowing the use of cameras, the law also standardizes driver fines. Major cities throughout the US that use red light cameras include Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Raleigh, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. Suppliers of red-light cameras in the US include: Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) State and Local Solutions, of Dallas, Texas; American Traffic Solutions of Scottsdale, AZ.; Brekford International Corp., of Hanover, MD; CMA Consulting Services, Inc. of Latham, NY; Gatso USA of Beverly, MA; iTraffic Safety LLC of Ridgeland, S.C.; Optotraffic, of Lanham, MD; Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix, AZ, with its parent company in Australia; RedSpeed-Illinois LLC, of Lombard, IL, whose parent company is in Worcestershire, England; SafeSpeed LLC, of Chicago, IL, and SENSYS America Inc., of Miami, FL.

Some states have chosen to prohibit the use of red light cameras. These include Arkansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom red-light cameras fall under the auspices of "safety cameras". They were first used in the early 1990s, with initial deployment by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. All costs were paid by the local authority in which the individual camera was placed and revenues accrued from fines were paid to the Treasury Consolidated Fund. In 1998 the government handed the powers of collection to local road safety partnerships, comprised "... local authorities, Magistrates’ Courts, the Highways Agency and the police."

In a report, published in December 2005, there were a total of 612 red light cameras in England alone, of which 225 were in London.

Worldwide
Red light camera usage is widespread in a number of countries worldwide, including Australia, Canada, India, Israel, Malta, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan and European countries such as Austria, Belgium, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Netherlands-based Gatso presented red light cameras to the market in 1965, and red light cameras were used for traffic enforcement in Israel as early as 1969. In the early 1970s, red light cameras were used for traffic enforcement in Europe. Australia began to use them on a wide scale in the 1980s. , expansion of red light camera usage in Australia is ongoing. In some areas of Australia where the red light cameras are used there is an online system to check the photograph taken of your vehicle if you receive a ticket. Singapore also began use of red light cameras in the 1980s, and installed the first camera systems over five years, starting in August 1986. In Canada, by 1998, red light cameras were in use in British Columbia and due to be implemented in Manitoba. In Alberta, red light cameras were installed in 1999 in Edmonton and in 2001 in Calgary. The UK first installed cameras in the 1990s, with the earliest locations including eight rail crossings in Scotland where there was greatest demand for enforcement of traffic signals due to fatalities.

Red light camera usage is extensive in mainland China and Hong Kong. , there were 816 red light cameras on 599 roads in Shenzhen. A difference between the red light camera use in China and in other countries is that, in addition to the enforcement from red light cameras at intersections where there is a high rate of speeding, mainland cities use a flashing green light to inform drivers of changing traffic lights. The green light typically flashes six times before turning to amber. In Hong Kong, where red light cameras are installed, signs are erected to warn drivers that cameras are present, with the aim of educating drivers to stop for signals. The number of red light cameras in Hong Kong doubled in May 2004, and digital red light cameras were introduced at intersections identified by the police and transport department as having the most violations and greatest risk. The digital cameras were introduced to further deter red light running. As added assistance to drivers, some of the camera posts were painted orange so that drivers could see them more easily. By 2006, Hong Kong had 96 red light cameras in operation.

US studies
In the US, a number of studies, including some government-sponsored studies, have examined whether red light cameras produce a safety benefit. Red light cameras led to a decrease in the most dangerous form of crashes, right-angle crashes, according to a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study in 2005. This study also found that, at some intersections, there can be a temporary increase in the number of rear-end collisions, leading to the total number of collisions remaining unchanged. Most studies usually show that where this is the case, the increase in rear-end collisions decreases once drivers have become accustomed to the new dynamics of the intersection. Some locations experience a decrease in rear-end collisions at intersections with red light cameras over time, for instance, in Los Angeles such collisions fell 4.7% from 2008 to 2009. However, in cost-benefit terms the FHWA concluded that the cameras yielded a positive overall cost benefit due to the reduction in more expensive right-angle injury collisions. Other studies have found a greater crash reduction. For example, a 2005 study of the Raleigh, North Carolina, red light camera program conducted by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University found right-angle crashes dropped by 42%, rear-end crashes dropped by 25% and total crashes dropped by 17%. In 2010, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety looked at results of a number of studies and found that red light cameras reduce total collisions and particularly reduce the type of crashes that are more likely to cause injuries. A 2011 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded that the rate of fatal red light running collisions in cities with a population of 200,000, or greater, with cameras was 24% lower than it would have been without cameras.

Not all studies have been positive, however. A 2005 Virginia Department of Transportation study of the long-term effects of camera enforcement in the state found a decrease in the number of right-angle crashes with injuries, but an increase in rear-end crashes and an overall increase in the number of crashes causing injuries. The report recommended further study of the issue to determine whether the severity of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes. In 2007, the department issued an updated report which showed that the overall number of crashes at intersections with red light cameras increased. This report concluded that the decision to install red light cameras should be made on an intersection by intersection basis as some intersections saw decreases in crashes and injuries that justified the use of red light cameras, while others saw increases in crashes, indicating that the cameras were not suitable in that location. This study was found to be methodologically flawed in a review by the IIHS in 2008. The review states, "[t]he appropriate conclusion after reviewing the VTRC study is that it did not validly assess whether camera enforcement did or did not reduce crashes; hence, it cannot provide guidance to communities considering the use of red light cameras." A more recent study, published by ITE in November 2010, found that red light cameras substantially reduce red light violations. It also found that violation reductions carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior.

Worldwide studies
A report in 2003 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) examined studies from the previous 30 years in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the US, and concluded that red light cameras "improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used." While the report states that evidence is not conclusive (partly due to flaws in the studies), the majority of studies show a reduction in angle crashes, a smaller increase in rear-end crashes, with some evidence of a “spillover” effect of reduced red light running to other intersections within a jurisdiction. These findings are similar to a 2005 meta analysis, which compared the results of 10 controlled before-after studies of red light cameras in the US, Australia and Singapore. The analysis stated that the studies showed a reduction in crashes (up to almost 30%) in which there were injuries, however, evidence was less conclusive for a reduction in total collisions. Studies of red light cameras worldwide show a reduction of crashes involving injury by about 25% to 30%, taking into account increases in rear-end crashes, according to testimony from a meeting of the Virginia House of Delegates Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee in 2003. These findings are supported by a review of more than 45 international studies carried out in 2010, which found that red light cameras reduce red light violation rates, crashes resulting from red light running, and usually reduce right-angle collisions.

In terms of location-specific studies, in Singapore a study from 2003 found that there was "a substantial drop" in red light violations at intersections with red light cameras. In particular the study found that drivers were encouraged to stop more readily in areas with red light cameras in use. A report from civic administrators in Saskatchewan in 2001, when considering red light camera use, referred to studies in the Netherlands and Australia that found a 40% decrease in red light violations and 32% decrease in right-angle crashes where red light cameras were installed. Following the introduction of red light cameras in Western Australia, the number of serious right-angle crashes decreased by 40%, according to an article from the Canberra Times. In an article from the Xinhua General News Service, the Hong Kong transport department reported that in 2006 the monthly average number of crashes due to red light violations fell 25% and the number of people injured in these crashes decreased by 30%, following an increase in the number of red light cameras in use.

Opinions
Opinion polls show a mixed response to red light cameras among the general public, however, polls generally show more people are in favor of the devices. An independent 2009 poll of US voters found that most Americans (69%) support the use of red light cameras, while 29% oppose them. The poll also showed that even though most people support the use of cameras, 47% percent of respondents believed most residents in their state oppose the cameras, and 41% believed most residents support the cameras. Within the US, public opinion surveys have shown support for the use of red light cameras to reduce red light violations, in addition to police efforts. For example, in an independent 2009 poll by Public Opinion Strategies, 77% of New York voters stated that they support the use of red light cameras. In Norway, Spain and the Netherlands, a postal survey in 2003 showed acceptance of the use of red light cameras for traffic enforcement. For some groups, the enforcement of traffic laws is considered the main reason for using the red light cameras. For example, a report from civic administrators in Canada's Saskatoon in 2001 described the cameras as "simply an enforcement tool used to penalize motorists that fail to stop for red traffic signals." In contrast to this, increased safety was given as the top answer by 59% of respondents to a 2010 US poll when asked for the reason that red light cameras are useful. The other two top answers were helping police (27% of respondents) and preventing reckless driving and red light running (22% of respondents).

Groups who believe that red light cameras reduce crashes and increase safety have formed lobbying groups such as the "Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida," which was created to lobby for a state law in Florida allowing red light cameras to be used. There are also various groups and individuals, such as the National Motorists Association, who oppose red light cameras on the grounds that the use of these devices raises legal issues and violates the privacy of citizens. They also argue that the use of red light cameras does not increase safety. For example, in the US, AAA Auto Club South argued against the passage of a Florida state law to allow red light cameras, stating that use of red light cameras was primarily for raising money for the state and local government coffers and would not increase road safety.

United States
Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin have enacted various prohibitions on red light, speed or other photo enforcement camera uses. While red light cameras may not be prohibited in other regions, they may have some restrictions on their use. In some jurisdictions, the law says that the camera needs to obtain a photo of the driver's face in order for the citation issued for running the red light to be valid. This is the case in California, Arizona, and Colorado where the red light cameras are set up to take a series of photographs, including one of the driver's face. This is the case in California where state law assesses a fine and points against the driver who runs a red light. Groups opposing the use of red light cameras have argued that where the cameras are not set up to identify the vehicle driver, owner liability issues are raised. It is perceived by some that the owner of the vehicle is unfairly penalized by being considered liable for red-light violations although they may not have been the driver at the time of the offense. In most jurisdictions the liability for red light violations is a civil offense, rather than a criminal citation, issued upon the vehicle owner -- similar to a parking ticket. The issue of owner liability has been addressed in the US courts, with a ruling in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2007, which agreed with a lower court when it found that the presumption of liability of the owners of vehicles issued citations does not violate due process rights. This ruling was supported by a 2009 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in which it was held that issuing citations to vehicle owners (or lessees) is constitutional. The court stated that it also encourages drivers to be cautious in lending their vehicles to others.

The argument that red light cameras violate the privacy of citizens, has also been addressed in the US courts. According to a 2009 ruling by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, “no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.” In addition, cameras only take photographs or video when a vehicle has run a red light and, in most states, the camera does not photograph the driver or the occupants of the vehicle.

In some areas, red light enforcement cameras are installed and maintained by private firms. Lawsuits have been raised challenging private companies' rights to hand out citations, such as a December 2008 lawsuit challenging the city of Dallas' red light camera program, which was dismissed in March 2009. In most cases, citations are issued by law enforcement officers using the evidence provided by the companies.

There have been instances where cities in the US have been criticized for shortened yellow signals at some intersections where red light cameras have been installed. In Tennessee, 176 drivers were refunded for fines paid after it was discovered that the length of the yellow signal was too short for that location, and motorists were caught running the light in the first second of the red phase. Although national guidelines addressing the length of traffic signals are available, traffic signal phase times are determined by the government employees of the city, county or state for that signalized location. While some states set jurisdiction-wide constant durations for yellow light intervals, a new standard is taking hold. States are required to adopt the 2009 National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as their legal state standard for traffic control devices in 2011. These standards require engineering practices to be used to set yellow light timing durations at individual intersections and or corridors. For guidance to state authorities, MUTCD states yellow lights should have a minimum duration of 3 seconds and a maximum duration of 6 seconds. The deadline for compliance is 2014. In the US, if the front tires of the car are in the intersection when the light is yellow, no ticket is issued.