Overview of automated enforcement in transportation

Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, Jun 1998 by Turner, Shawn, Polk, Amy Ellen

AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT IS SEEN BY SOME PUBLIC AGENCIES AS A MEANS TO COMBAT AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BEHAVIORS SUCH AS SPEEDING OR RUNNING RED LIGHTS. BY READING THIS FEATURE AND THE ACCOMPANYING SIDEBARS, THE READER SHOULD GAIN A WELLROUNDED VIEW OF THE TOPIC.

RECENT TESTIMONY BEFORE A congressional committee highlighted the problems associated with aggressive driving, and included potential countermeasures such as increased and innovative enforcement of traffic laws.1,2 In his testimony, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that about one-third of all crashes and two-thirds of the resulting fatalities in the United States in recent years can be attributed to aggressive driving behaviors. Aggressive driving is often manifest in irresponsible driving behaviors such as speeding, running red lights and tailgating. Increased enforcement of traffic laws is viewed as a potential solution for aggressive driving, but limited financial resources have led some public agencies to consider the use of automated enforcement.

For this article, automated enforcement is defined as follows:

Automated enforcement is the use of image capture technology to monitor and enforce traffic control laws, regulations, or restrictions. Where enabling legislation authorizes the use of automated enforcement, the image capture technology negates the need for a police officer to directly witness a traffic offense.

For example, Figures I and 2 show pictures captured by an automated redlight enforcement system in Howard County, Md., USA. Pictures such as these are used as evidence (in addition to other testimony) to prosecute a trafficsignal violation.

BACKGROUND

Because of widespread interest in automated enforcement, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Traffic Engineering Council developed a draft position statement on the use of automated enforcement (published in ITE Journal March 1998, page 46). A Traffic Engineering Committee, chaired by Shawn Turner, currently is gathering information on the use of automated enforcement, with an emphasis on red-light, speed-limit and rail-highway grade-crossing enforcement. The committee also is investigating applications of automated enforcement with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and bus lanes, electronic toll collection (ETC) systems and vehicle inspection and weigh-in-motion (WIM) stations. Table 1 contains a summary of automated enforcement programs identified thus far by the committee. The committee findings will be published in an ITE Informational Report later this year.

IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS

Based upon a review of automated enforcement programs worldwide, several elements were found to be important in successful programs. These implementation elements include public education and awareness, involvement of local judiciary and passage of enabling legislation.

Public Education and Awareness

Public education and awareness of automated enforcement activities is a critical element of nearly all successful automated enforcement programs. Favorable public opinion and public acceptance have been named most often as the aspect that can "make or break" an automated enforcement program. Numerous cities or jurisdictions have discontinued programs due to public or political disapproval (see Table 1).

Public safety campaigns explain why the state or local government is implementing the program, the traffic safety issues being addressed (e.g., speeding on local streets, red-light violations, railroad-crossing gate running, etc.), what advantages automated enforcement has over conventional law enforcement methods and how ticket revenue will be used. These programs also inform people who receive notices by mail of their options, such as paying the fine by mail, contesting the ticket in court, or identifying another driver who committed the alleged violation. The Federal Highway Administration developed a Red Light Running Campaign Strategic Planning Guide to assist local agencies with public education and awareness.3 Many examples of public education materials can be found on the World Wide Web.4

Involvement of Local Judiciary

Getting the judiciary involved early in the public debate (either before or concurrent with debate at the legislative level) is another critical but frequently overlooked step. Judges at any level have the ability to nullify automatic enforcement programs if the right case is brought to their courtrooms. Therefore, program implementors must figure out which court(s) will end up hearing contested tickets and involve those judges in the design of the program. In addition, there are several legal issues that vary among different states and municipalities, such as whether the state constitution contains an explicit or implicit right to privacy, whether the "silent witness" theory applies and whether "service" by mail is allowed.5 Local judges can answer these questions.

Anchorage, Alaska, USAs photo radar program was struck down at the local judicial level. The program had not been tested in the courts prior to initiation of the program.6 In New York City, N.Y., USA's successful red-light running program, however, the city's Department of Transportation involved administrative law judges in design of their program.7