Contact us
 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
Useful Links
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Article
Automated Traffic Enforcement: Responding to the Critics
Author(s)
Charles M. Farmer
Full-Text PDF
XML 1433 Views
DOI:10.17265/2328-2142/2017.01.001
Affiliation(s)
Research and Statistical Services, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Ruckersville, VA 22968, USA
ABSTRACT
In many countries, traffic volumes and the number of drivers are rising
faster than the availability of police officers whose routine duties include
traffic law enforcement. Automated traffic enforcement, which produces
photographic evidence of vehicles detected speeding or running red lights, can
be used to supplement traditional enforcement. In the United States and Canada, a number of individuals and
organizations have been very vocal in their opposition to automated traffic
enforcement. They argue that automated
enforcement programs are unnecessary for improving
road safety, that they unfairly target relatively good drivers, and that they are
motivated by revenue generation rather than safety. These
arguments, however, often ignore
the numerous
peer-reviewed studies that have
found real-world
benefits in communities that use automated
enforcement—cameras
deter would-be
violators, reduce crashes, and save lives. Solid, published research by a number of experts
demonstrates that red light cameras save lives, and speed cameras substantially reduce speeding and speed-related
crashes. Surveys of drivers and
other road users indicate
widespread support for automated enforcement. With
regard to fairness, the objective of photo enforcement is to deter violations, not to surreptitiously catch violators. The more
public the enforcement is, the better.
If anything,
automated enforcement programs improve fairness
by reducing the potential for prejudicial enforcement. Finally, photo enforcement is intended to improve
traffic safety by modifying the driver behaviors that lead to crashes, and it is reasonable to expect that people who break the law should pay for enforcing it. Ticket revenue should decline
overtime
as the
cameras succeed in deterring would-be speeders
and red light runners. This paper provides
research-based responses to the critics’ arguments as well as best practice
guidelines for effective automated enforcement programs.
KEYWORDS
Speeding, red-light running, photo enforcement, best practices.
Cite this paper
References