The automated road safety enforcement industry in the United States had a very robust 2010. The industry continued to grow to the point that providers now have nearly 5,000 cameras deployed in 25 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, with more than 650 communities utilising such life-saving technology. Intersection safety cameras are the most common application but more communities are also implementing road safety camera programmes to deter excessive speeding. Deploying cameras to protect children
Intersections are the most common application for safety cameras
James Tuton, president and CEO of American Traffic Solutions, reflects on the legislative developments relating to automated enforcement which have taken place in the US in 2010
The automated road safety enforcement industry in the United States had a very robust 2010. The industry continued to grow to the point that providers now have nearly 5,000 cameras deployed in 25 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, with more than 650 communities utilising such life-saving technology. Intersection safety cameras are the most common application but more communities are also implementing road safety camera programmes to deter excessive speeding. Deploying cameras to protect children in school zones is also gaining popularity.Legislative progress in Florida
After six years of legislative efforts to establish uniform standards legislation in Florida the legislature there finally passed the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, which is named for a Florida citizen who was killed by a red light runner. Melissa Wandall, Mark's widow, worked tirelessly to get the legislation approved. The new law sets a uniform price for citations with a portion of the funds remitted to Florida's Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Program, as well as state trauma centres.Legislation unfavourable to public safety, and automated enforcement, was introduced and defeated in the states of Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee this year. Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have state statutes that recognise the use of technology to automatically enforce traffic safety laws.
California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was very clear in his veto message of a proposed law that would have decreased the fines for drivers who roll through red lights while turning right. "A driver running a red light, whether they are travelling straight or turning right, makes a very dangerous traffic movement that endangers the nearby motoring public, bicyclists and pedestrians," he wrote. "Modifying existing law to make red light violations from a right turn less egregious sends the wrong message to the public that California is tolerant of these types of offenses. It is our responsibility to protect the motoring public and not increase the risk of traffic collisions."
Courts continue to affirm constitutionality
In the United States, most innovations in technology and enforcement are tested through our legal system. Litigators tried to undermine efforts to mandate seat belt use, install air bags in vehicles and allow officers to use radar guns, but these public safety tools all prevailed in the end. In 2010, we saw a continuation of the frivolous lawsuits we experienced last year. This was not unexpected. As our technology gains acceptance across the country, with more communities opting to take advantage of the public safety benefits of deploying road safety enforcement programmes, there will continue to be opportunistic plaintiffs' attorneys anxious to make money by challenging our industry until the market matures.The good news is that such programmes are being overwhelmingly supported by the courts. Last year, the Seventh Circuit,
The only court with more authority is the
This year, the federal appeals courts issued further rulings supportive of our industry.
In a landmark case, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a case from Akron, Ohio in which the plaintiff alleged that traffic citations issued as part of a road safety program violated the motorist's constitutional rights. The motorist won her quest to have her citation dismissed on the grounds that the speed limit signs were damaged or vandalised at the time she sped through a school zone. But then she filed a lawsuit claiming that the city's ordinance authorising civil penalties for speeding captured by automated cameras is a violation of the US Constitution due to its criminal nature, and a violation of due process protections. Both the district court and the court of appeals disagreed. In a case out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court dismissed lawsuits against ATS and Redflex which claimed that the two companies were required to have private investigators' licenses to operate in Texas.
Continuing class action lawsuits
The city of Springfield, Missouri suspended its intersection safety camera programme this year after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city could not hold administrative hearings for challenges to municipal violations but must use a judicial process, as required under state law. Springfield was the only Missouri city that used an administrative hearing to handle appeals.When camera opponents declared that this meant intersection safety camera programmes were unconstitutional, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a statement clarifying that the "court did not say that the cameras, the tickets or the process was unconstitutional".
An enterprising attorney filed a class action suit in federal court seeking to have all Springfield citations that were paid refunded.
In dismissing the lawsuit, the judge wrote, "The freedom to run a red light is not a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition... clearly, a legislative body could find that improved surveillance and enforcement of red light violations would result in fewer accidents." In the state of Washington, a US District Court rejected three separate challenges to the use of safety cameras brought by more than 40 violators who received tickets. That case was filed against ATS, Redflex and 18 of the companies' respective client cities. Although the plaintiffs argued that the cities violated state law requirements for issuing tickets because the infraction forms were not treated in the same manner as parking tickets, the court disagreed. The plaintiffs also claimed that the fees associated with the violations were unreasonable. The judge didn't agree with that argument either, explaining that state law "grants municipalities flexibility in determining fine levels, and the fines are not excessive." Class action suits were also thrown out in two cases in Tennessee, and California courts are currently considering various cases related to the introduction of photo enforcement evidence when violators appeal against their citations.
Florida has several lawsuits pending, including 24 class action suits, none of which has yet been certified to qualify for such status. Most of these lawsuits have been filed by the same law firm and many were filed before Florida passed its statewide enabling legislation.
Critics turn to the ballot box
When opponents can't get traction in the courts or their state legislatures, some are starting to go to the voters. This has worked in a few small communities where it takes very few signatures to get an issue on the ballot and voter turnout is low. Cameras were voted out of Sykesville, Maryland (population 4,200) this year.An opposition group in Arizona failed to get enough signatures to force a statewide vote. Now they're going into individual cities where the number of signatures needed is minimal to make it to the ballot.
As this magazine goes to press, five cities have votes scheduled in early November on camera systems in California, Washington, Texas and Ohio. The most notable of these is Houston, Texas, where the opposition to intersection safety cameras is being led by an attorney who makes his living fighting officer-issued traffic citations. A vigorous support of the cameras has been mounted by the mayor, police officers, fire-fighters, other first responders and medical professionals who deal with the carnage caused by red light runners.
Continued public support
A national opinion poll conducted late last December revealed that 80 per cent of the public across America support intersection safety cameras, while 67 per cent support speed safety cameras. Ironically, as we've seen in past polls, nearly half the respondents still think most Americans oppose the cameras.In an independent poll conducted in Washington by
In a statewide poll conducted early this year in Florida, 72 per cent of the public supported intersection safety cameras; 65 per cent of respondents said they thought the cameras improve traffic safety.
Looking forward to 2011
The issues related to automated enforcement will continue to make their way through the US court system, eventually providing us with a solid foundation of case law confirming the legality, constitutionality and safety benefits of road safety enforcement programmes. Automated enforcement stakeholders will continue to work with state legislatures across the country to tell their story.In America, we have new legislators elected every two years, so communication with these elected officials requires ongoing education efforts.
The vocal minority will continue to be vocal. Attorneys and disgruntled motorists will continue to file lawsuits. But the automated enforcement sector will prevail because it's doing the right thing - protecting the public safety of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists while freeing officers to pursue drunk and reckless drivers, to respond to burglaries and to target serious crimes.
