Invisible traffic cops.

Burnett, Chris

People complained in 1903 when Massachusetts and Missouri made them get the first licenses to drive. Now they're complaining about cameras set up to catch them speeding through red lights.

On the way to work, you suddenly see the flash. The bright light, visible for only a split second, has come from an unmarked white station wagon on the shoulder of the road. Glancing in the rearview mirror, you notice a man slouched in the driver's seat reading the newspaper.

You know that camera traffic enforcement has come to your town, but it seems hard to imagine you're its latest victim. After all, you really weren't going that fast, were you?

A few weeks later, the flash now a distant memory, the notification arrives in an envelope marked official city business. The ticket says you were going 43 in a 30-mile-per-hour zone, and that you owe $40. You can pay by mail. If you want to contest the ticket, you can view the picture at the municipal court, and challenge it like any other traffic fine.

STATE POLICIES FOR THE USE OF TRAFFIC CAMERA RADAR

CALIFORNIA * Establishes conditions on the use of red-light
 radar and rail crossing cameras by law enforcement
 officials.

COLORADO * Authorizes the use of cameras to enforce traffic
 regulations.

 * Prohibits the Colorado Department of Motor
 Vehicles from assessing points for camera detected
 violations.

 * Prohibits using the state's system for tracking
 outstanding judgments and warrants to keep drivers
 with unpaid photo radar tickets from renewing their
 licenses.

 * Sets a $40 cap on fines for photo radar detected
 violations.

 * Requires warning tickets for first-time offenders
 if their violations are less than 10 mph over the
 speed limit.

 * Requires cities using camera systems to
 compensate the suppliers of those systems based on
 the value of its equipment and services rather than
 on the number of tickets generated by the system.

DELAWARE * Authorizes a red-light camera program throughout
 the state.

DISTRICT OF * Authorizes a red-light camera program in the
COLUMBIA district.

ILLINOIS * Authorizes the use of traffic cameras at rail
 crossings.

MARYLAND * Authorizes law enforcement agencies statewide to
 mail citations to owners of motor vehicles recorded
 by a traffic control signal monitoring system in
 violation of traffic laws.

NEW JERSEY * Prohibits the use of camera radar by law
 enforcement officers or agencies.

NEW YORK * Authorizes cities with populations of more than
 1 million to operate demonstration projects with a
 maximum of 25 photo monitoring devices.

NORTH CAROLINA * Authorizes the city of Charlotte to operate a
 red-light camera program.

OREGON * Authorizes Portland and Beaverton to operate
 camera radar demonstration projects at their own
 cost.

 * Requires jurisdictions to initiate public
 information campaigns to inform drivers about the
 use of camera radar and evaluate outcomes.

 * Restricts areas and lengths of operation.

 * Outlines conditions for the issuance of
 citations.

 * Repeals the act on Dec. 31, 1998.

TEXAS * Establishes a pilot program for use of camera
 radar at rail crossings.

UTAH * Limits camera radar to use in school zones, areas
 with speed limits of 30 miles per hour or less, when
 a police officer is present with the camera radar
 unit, when signs are posted on the highway providing
 notice to a motorist that camera radar may be used,
 and when the citation is accompanied by the
 photograph produced by camera radar.

VIRGINIA * Establishes a pilot program allowing specified
 localities to operate traffic light camera radar
 monitoring systems at no more than 25 intersections
 within each locality.

 * Specifies that these systems are allowed in
 cities with more than 390,000 people, cities with
 more than 200,000 and fewer than 225,000 people,
 and counties with an urban county executive form of
 government.

WISCONSIN * Prohibits the use of photo radar by law
 enforcement officers.

Is this high-tech enforcement Big Brother in an Orwellian world, a loss of personal freedom through due process rights, or a necessary step in the fight for highway safety?

Increasingly, state legislators and city officials across the country are being asked to answer that question. Scenarios such as the one above occur daily in Fort Collins, Colo., a city of 105,000 that adopted photo traffic enforcement two years ago.

Police officers there emphasize the positive. Since the program began in August 1996, the city has had a reduction in personal injury and overall accidents. Comparing 1995 and 1997 figures, accident rates dropped 5 percent and injury accidents dropped 18 percent.

The program also pays for itself, even after taking out payments to the contractor and court costs. "This is one tool in the toolbox [for reducing accidents]," said Rita Davis of the Fort Collins police department.

Photo radar to detect speeding can be operated automatically or by law enforcement officers. The system combines a camera, computer and radar. If a speeding car is detected, the camera takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. Radar systems also operate at busy intersections where cameras are installed to apprehend drivers who run red lights. In some parts of the country they also operate at rail crossings. The time, date and place of the photo are recorded. The registered owner of the vehicle then gets a ticket in the mail. Alleged violators usually can make an appointment with law enforcement officials to view their pictures.

Supporters say the new traffic technologies such as photo radar or red-light cameras cut down on highway accident rates. Each year in the United States, more than 1 million motor vehicle collisions occur at traffic signals, resulting in more than a half million injuries and over 40,000 fatalities, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Opponents point to potential violation of motorists' civil liberties and privacy. "A bad idea whose time has not come" is how Representative Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin describes camera enforcement. Camera enforcement was banned in Wisconsin in 1995 as a result of a Schneider amendment to transportation legislation.

"With photo radar you have no right of defense," Schneider says. "It's technology that triggers the ticket."

New Jersey banned camera enforcement in 1992. Steve Carellas, New Jersey coordinator for the National Motorists Association, a nonprofit group that defends drivers' rights, said the right against camera enforcement is just one step in a broader move against greater electronic surveillance on the highway.

"We don't buy into the premise that by slowing down traffic you're going to get more safety," Carellas said. Instead, Carellas argues that speed limits should reflect what the majority of traffic is doing.

Fewer crashes at red lights would result from improving the timing of lights so motorists are not frustrated by stop-and-go conditions, Carellas said. "It's usually poor timing of lights, poor road design that cause frustration," Carellas said. "If we want to move traffic, we should make proper use of traffic control devices."

In reaction to these kinds of protests, Colorado and Utah have legislated guidelines or restrictions on the use of radar systems. Local jurisdictions appear likely to continue to press ahead, however, with what some see as a constructive use of technology to control traffic violations.

The greatest push seems to be toward red-light systems. In Maryland, Senator Leonard Teitelbaum said he hears few complaints these days about legislation that passed the General Assembly last year on camera enforcement. That bill authorized law enforcement agencies statewide to mail citations to owners of motor vehicles-recorded by monitoring systems as in violation of traffic laws.

The lack of controversy was not always the case, however. Teitelbaum said he at first encountered resistance from people who said installing cameras at intersections to take pictures of red-light runners was an intrusion on personal privacy.

"I have not heard of any complaints in the last six to eight months," Teitelbaum said. Drivers are "more aggressive than they have ever been. I think people have come to realize [camera enforcement] is the lesser of evils."

Since passage of the law, at least two Maryland counties - Howard and Montgomery - have begun using red-light camera systems. Teitelbaum said he hopes to seek an attorney general's opinion on whether legislative authority is needed to expand to photo radar systems in the 1999 session of the General Assembly.

American Traffic Systems of Scottsdale, Ariz., a leading manufacturer of photo radar systems, cites a number of advantages, including:

* Freeing police officers for prevention of more serious crime.

* Increasing driver awareness of the need to control speeds and observe red lights.

* Reducing speed-related fatalities.

* Decreasing the number and severity of crashes.

* Putting the cost of traffic-control programs on the violator, not the taxpayers.

* Enforcing traffic laws without discrimination.

* Increasing safety and efficiency by reducing the number of high-speed chases, as well as the number of call-outs required for traffic accident clean-up, investigation and court testimony.

* Potentially lowering insurance costs for safe drivers through overall reduction in collisions and related injuries.

Traffic cameras have produced significant and measurable traffic safety results worldwide for more than 25 years, according to American Traffic Systems. A total of 74 countries other than the United States - including many countries in Europe and neighboring Canada and Mexico - use traffic cameras to control speed and stop violations. Public opinion polls show support for camera enforcement systems in these countries.

Supporters such as American Traffic Systems and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, based in Arlington, Va., say public opinion in this country also supports use of camera enforcement as a way of reducing traffic accidents. A 1995 telephone survey sponsored by the institute found that 66 percent of 1,006 people surveyed favored the use of red-light cameras, compared with 28 percent opposed. Similar public opinion surveys in European countries showed that drivers support or at least accept these systems, according to a 1993 study published in Traffic Engineering and Control.

As a result, traffic camera radar is a growth industry. The number of U.S. cities using it has increased over the past three years from just New York City to about two dozen cities, according to Richard A. Retting of the Insurance Institute. A number of those are in California, Arizona and Colorado.

Communities adopting the systems generally follow two paths. In Arizona and California, law enforcement agencies in communities using cameras have tended to follow a system in which a picture is taken of the driver and the license plate, and a speeding or red-light ticket is sent to the home of the registered owner. A fine is levied and points are assessed against the driver's record. Arizona camera enforcement occurs without state legislation, while in California, a law makes sure that red-light systems have proper authorization.

A number of California cities including San Francisco, Beverly Hills, San Diego, Los Angeles and Sacramento, have adopted or are moving to red-light systems. San Jose already is using camera radar enforcement.

"It's working well, just as predicted," said Senator Quentin Kopp, author of a 1995 bill that established guidelines for California communities using red-light enforcement. Kopp's bill required cities or counties that seek to use cameras to announce the program at least a month before it begins, deliver citations within 10 days after the violation and give those cited the right to inspect their photographs. A three-year demonstration program is expiring this month. In May, the Legislature passed a bill that gives police, with the approval of local government, the authority to use the camera evidence to penalize stoplight violators.

Kopp said the legislation was necessary because many communities were reluctant to institute camera enforcement without some sort of state guidelines. Kopp said he'd recommend other states move in the direction of greater camera enforcement.

"It's fail-safe as far as I'm concerned," Kopp said. "That camera doesn't lie."

However, there were vocal critics in the Legislature. During debate on the issue, Assemblyman Bernie Richter said using automatic cameras was so controlling and intrusive it reminded him of "Germany in the 1930s." Richter also compared installation of cameras at intersections to government filming of homosexuals who frequent public parks seeking sex partners.

In California, the debate is likely to continue. Steve Schnaidt, a principal consultant to the Senate Transportation Committee, said separate legislation is pending that would clarify the fact that the Legislature's endorsement of redlight enforcement does not extend to speed enforcement using photo radar with cameras.

Photo radar remains legal in California. However, according to Schnaidt, "photo radar is an even bigger bugaboo...It doesn't generate a lot of good PR." The communities that use it are accused of having "a ticket machine," Schnaidt said.

Controversy often seems to dog communities that use photo radar. Albuquerque, New Mexico's plans to use photo radar have come under fire. The motor vehicle division calls the plan to use photo radar illegal, and state officials said they would not enforce fines, or assess penalty points against driver's licenses, for speeders caught with the systems.

In Eastern cities, the tendency in camera enforcement is not to assess points against driving records. Instead, citations are sent to the address of the owner of the vehicle, and a civil fine is levied. In Fairfax, Va., a $50 fine is assessed on the owner of the vehicle.

Retting, who has studied the issue for more than three years for the Insurance Institute and while working for the city of New York, said this system can offer the advantage of garnering less public wrath than those that impose points against drivers.

Several western communities adopting traffic camera enforcement report good results. In Scottsdale, Ariz., collisions in speed camera zones dropped 22 percent during the first half of 1997. Tempe, Ariz., last year put in two photo radar vans and two redlight cameras. Oxnard, Calif., as well as Fort Collins, Colo., report success with their camera radar programs. In Oxnard, red-light violations dropped about 42 percent several months after cameras were introduced last year at intersections, according to a study by the Insurance Institute. Boulder and Denver, Colo., recently have started using photo enforcement to catch speeders. The Denver suburb of Commerce City reported violations dropped 81 percent after camera radar was instituted in 1996. Commerce City suspended camera radar use after a more restrictive state law went into effect in 1997.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia to date have legislated in the area of traffic camera radar. This legislation either places restrictions or conditions on the use of camera radar or authorizes cities of a certain size to use it. Utah and Colorado are examples of states using the more restrictive approach. Colorado's General Assembly passed a law in 1997 limiting penalties municipalities can impose on speeders caught by photo radar and barring the state's Department of Motor Vehicles from assessing points for violations detected by camera. Colorado's law sets a $40 cap on fines, and requires cities using camera systems to compensate the suppliers based on the value of equipment and services rather than on the number of tickets generated.

Utah's law says traffic camera radar may not be used except in school zones, in areas with posted speed limits of 30 miles per hour or less, when signs are posted on the highway providing notice to a motorist that camera radar may be used, when the citation is accompanied by a photograph of the driver and when a peace officer is present with the photo radar unit. Eastern states adopting camera radar legislation tend to be less restrictive, preferring to stipulate in legislation the size of jurisdictions that can use camera enforcement.

Whatever actions states take, supporters see the trend toward greater use of camera technology as irresistible. "I wouldn't be surprised to see it just about everywhere in three or four years," said Richard Leib, general counsel for U.S. Public Technologies, Inc., a San Diego company that makes redlight systems.

Dana King, a U.S. Technologies' senior vice president, sees photo enforcement as the kind of public-private partnership that helps communities solve pressing problems. "People are tired of aggressive driving and road rage," King said. "You just can't put a cop at every intersection. With these [systems], you have a cop on duty 24 hours a day."

Chris Burnett tracks transportation and traffic issues for NCSL.