Traffic enforcement camera

Gatso speed camera

File:Radarfoto.JPG

A picture taken by a speed camera

A traffic enforcement camera (also road safety camera, road rule camera, photo radar, speed camera, Gatso) is a system, including a camera which may be mounted beside on over a highway or installed in an enforcement vehicle to detect traffic regulation violations, including speeding, vehicles going through a red traffic light, unauthorized use of a bus lane, for recording vehicles inside a congestion charge area and others.

The latest automatic number plate recognition systems can be used for the detection of average speeds and raise concerns over loss of privacy and the potentially for governments to establish mass surveillance of vehicle movements and therefore by association also the movement of the vehicle's owner. Vehicles owners are often required by law to identify the driver of the vehicle and a case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights who found that the Human Rights Act 1998 was not being breached. Some groups claim that systems are used primarily as a source of revenue rather than to enforce traffic rules for the declared objectives.

History

Older traffic enforcement camera in Ludwigsburg, Germany

The concept of the speed camera can be dated back to at least 1905; Popular Mechanics reports on a patent for a Time Recording Camera for Trapping Motorists that enabled the operator to take time-stamped images of a vehicle moving across the start and endpoints of a measured section of road. The timestamps enabled the speed to be calculated, and the photo enabled identification of the driver.

The Dutch company Gatsometer BV, which was founded in 1958 by rally driver Maurice Gatsonides, produced the 'Gatsometer'. The device was a described as "a revolutionary speed-measuring device". Gatsonides wished to better monitor his speed around the corners of a race track and came up with the device in order to improve his time around the circuit. The company later started supplying these devices as police speed enforcement tools. They demonstrated the first red light camera in 1965 which used tubes that were stretched across the road. They developed the first radar for use with road traffic in 1971 and the world's first mobile speed traffic camera in 1982; the company is currently the world's largest supplier of speed camera systems. The name "Gatso" has through colloquial usage become synonymous with all brands of speed cameras.

The first systems introduced in the late 1960s used film cameras to take their pictures. From the late 1990s, digital cameras began to be introduced. Digital cameras can be fitted with a network connection to transfer images to a central processing location automatically, so they have advantages over film cameras in speed of issuing fines, maintenance and operational monitoring. However, film-based systems may provide superior image quality in the variety of lighting conditions encountered on roads, and are required by courts in some jurisdictions. New film-based systems are still being sold, but digital pictures are providing greater versatility and are now significantly more popular with law enforcement agencies.

Types

Automatic speed enforcement gantry or "Lombada Eletrônica" with ground sensors at Brasilia, D.F.

Gatso Mobile Speed Camera, used in Victoria, Australia. The camera is mounted on the passenger side dash, whilst the black box on the front is the radar unit.

• Bus lane cameras to detect unauthorised vehicles using bus lanes
• Congestion charge cameras to detect vehicles inside the chargeable area which have not paid the appropriate fee
• High-occupancy vehicle lane cameras to identify vehicles violating occupancy requirements.
• Level crossing cameras to identifying vehicles crossing railways at grade
• Noise pollution cameras that record evidence of heavy vehicles that break noise regulations by using engine braking
• Parking cameras which issue citations to vehicles which are illegally parked or which were not moved from a street at posted times.
• Red light cameras to detect vehicles which go through a red light
• Speed limit enforcement cameras for identifying vehicles traveling over the legal speed limit (both radar to measure a vehicle's instantaneous speed and average speed cameras which detect average speed of a vehicle between two points)
• Toll-booth cameras to identify vehicles proceeding through a toll booth without paying the toll
• Turn cameras at intersections where specific turns are prohibited on red. This type of camera is mostly used in cities or heavy populated areas.
• automatic number plate recognition systems can be used for multiple purposes, including identifying untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and potentially mass surveillance of motorists .

Fixed camera systems can mounted in boxes or on poles beside the road or attached to gantries over the road, or to overpasses or bridges. Cameras can be concealed, for example in garbage bins.

Mobile speed cameras may be hand-held, tripod mounted. In vehicle-mounted systems, detection equipment and cameras can be mounted to the vehicle itself, or simply tripod mounted inside the vehicle and deployed out a window or door. If the camera is fixed to the vehicle, the enforcement vehicle does not necessarily have to be stationary, and can be moved either with or against the flow of traffic. In the latter case, depending on the direction of travel, the target vehicle's relative speed is either added or subtracted from the enforcement vehicle's own speed to obtain its actual speed. The speedometer of the camera vehicle needs to be accurately calibrated.

Some number plate recognition systems can be used from vehicles.

Bus lane enforcement

Some bus lane enforcement cameras use a sensor in the road which triggers a number plate recognition camera which compares the vehicle registation plate with a list of approved vehicles and records images of other vehicles. Other systems use a camera mounted on the bus, for example in London where they monitor Red routes on which stopping is not allowed for any purpose (other than taxis and disabled parking permit holders).

On Monday, February 23, 2009, New York City announced testing camera enforcement of bus lanes on 34th Street in Midtown Manhattan where a New York City taxi illegally using the bus lanes would face a fine of 150 USD adjudicated by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.

Red light enforcement

Main article: Red light camera

Red light camera in Springfield, Ohio, USA.

A red light camera is a traffic enforcement camera that takes an image of a vehicle that illegally goes through an intersection where the light is red. Red light cameras help to enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing vehicles disobeying stop lights. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal and the camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset minimum speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red.

Speed limit enforcement

Main article: Speed limit enforcement

Speed enforcement cameras are used to monitor compliance with speed limits which may use Doppler, LIDAR or Automatic number plate recognition. Other speed enforcement systems are also used which are not camera based.

Fixed or mobile speed camera systems that measure the time taken by a vehicle to travel between two or more fairly distant sites (from several hundred metres to several hundred kilometres apart) are called automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These cameras time vehicles over a known fixed distance, then calculate the vehicle's average speed for the journey. The name derives from the fact that the technology uses infrared cameras linked to a computer to "read" a vehicle's registration number and identify it in real-time.

Number plate recognition systems

Main article: Automatic number plate recognition

Automatic number plate recognition can be used for purposes unrelated to enforcement of traffic rules. In principle any agency or person with access to data either from traffic cameras or cameras installed for other purposes can track the movement of vehicles for any purpose.

Australia's SAFE-T-CAM system, ANPR technology is also used to monitor long distance truck drivers to detect avoidance of legally prescribed driver rest periods.

The United Kingdom's police ANPR system logs all the vehicles passing particular points in the national road network, allowing authorities to track the movement of vehicles and individuals across the country.

In the UK an 80-year-old pensioner John Catt and his daughter Linda (with no criminal record between them) were stopped by City of London Police while driving in London, UK in 2005, had their vehicle searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and were threatened with arrest if they refused to answer questions. After they complained formally, it was discovered they were stopped when their car was picked up by roadside ANPR CCTV cameras; it had been flagged in the Police National Computer database when they were seen near EDO MBM demonstrations in Brighton. Critics point out that the Catts had been suspected of no crime, however the UK's mass surveillance infrastructure allowed them to be targeted due to their association.

Avoidance/evasion

A GPS map showing speed camera POI information overlaid onto it

To avoid detection or prosecution drivers may:

• Brake just before a camera in order to travel past its sensor below the speed limit.
• Attempt to obscure their faces to avoid being identified, given that in certain jurisdictions, summonses from some cameras require drivers' faces in addition to vehicular license plates; drivers whose faces are obscured (including motorcyclists wearing full-face helmets) have avoided the issuance of certain summonses.
• Use GPS navigation devices which contain databases of known camera locations to alert them in advance. These databases may in some cases be update in near-realtime. The use of GPS devices to locate speed cameras is illegal in some jurisdictions.
• Install passive laser detectors or radar detectors that detect when the vehicle's speed is being monitored and warn the driver; however, these may be illegal in some jurisdictions.
• Install active laser jammer or radar jammer devices which actively transmit signals that interfere with the measuring device. These devices are illegal in many jurisdictions.
• Remove, falsify, obscure or modify vehicle license plate (which is often illegal). Treatments include the use of anti-flash spray that adds a high-gloss finish to the plate that allegedly causes the camera's flash to over-expose the picture (thereby making the plate unreadable), or an infrared filter that renders the digits unreadable when illuminated by an infrared flashlight.
• Damage, vandalize or interfere with speed measuring device to render it inoperable.
• Not speed - after all the best way to avoid detection (and possible death) is to slow down.

In the case of photographic cameras that operate by measuring the short distance travelled by a vehicle in the brief interval between two sensors, there are theories that a "maximum speed" exists. Thus, a vehicle travelling at or above this speed will have passed through the camera's field of view before the second photograph is taken, rendering measurement impossible. In 2002, the BBC television programme Top Gear tested this theory, with inconclusive results. In their "Speed Cameras" episode, the hosts of the American television show MythBusters used various methods to attempt to trick or diminish the effectiveness of traffic enforcement cameras, with mixed results. They concluded while driving a turbine vehicle that it was actually fast enough for the speed camera to not even take a photograph. This theory is also commonly extended to radar and lidar devices, but its effectiveness is questionable.

Controversy

The use of traffic enforcement cameras is contentious. There are a number of legal issues which arise as a result depending on local laws and the procedures used by the enforcing bodies. There are political issues associated with camera schemes which are unpopular with some motorists and in many areas some motorists have lobbied against camera schemes. Finally, there are concerns as to whether traffic enforcement cameras genuinely do improve safety.

In a number of jurisdictions, there was a degree of controversy surrounding the deployment of increasing numbers of speed and red-light cameras beginning in the late 1980s. Police and government were accused of "Big Brother tactics" in over-monitoring of public roads, and of "revenue raising" in applying cameras in deceptive ways to increase government revenue rather than improve road safety.

Often when camera deployment has been accompanied by large scale advertising campaigns explaining the justification and planned effects of such cameras, proponents argue that the public has accepted their use on a large scale.

In the United States, camera enforcement has been controversial since the first speed camera systems issued tickets in Friendswood, Texas in 1986 and La Marque, Texas in 1987. Neither program lasted more than a few months before public pressure forced them to be dropped.

Arizona, after a study completed 2/19/2010 of their statewide 76 photo enforcement cameras, decided to not renew their contract with Redflex in 2011. Less than expected revenue due to improved compliance, mixed public acceptance and mixed accident data were cited, among other findings.

Cameras have been rejected by voters in referenda several times in the US. In Peoria, Arizona voters were the first to reject cameras by a 2-1 margin in 1991, although there is a current debate about the speed camera network that has since been installed on the highways in the Phoenix area since 2007. This was followed by a similar vote in Batavia, Illinois in 1992. Anchorage, Alaska rejected cameras in a 1997 referendum and Steubenville, Ohio did so in 2006. In 2002 the state of Hawaii experimented with speed limit enforcement vans but they were withdrawn months later due to public outcry. In 2005, the Virginia legislature declined to reauthorize its red light camera enforcement law after a study questioned their effectiveness, only to reverse itself in 2007 and allow cameras to return to any city with a population greater than 10,000. In 2009, a petition was started in the town of College Station, Texas which requested that all red light cameras be dismantled and removed from all of the town's intersections. Enough signatures were captured to put the measure on the November 2009 general election ballot. After an extensive battle between the College Station city council and the opposing sides, both for and against red light cameras, the voters voted to eliminate the red light cameras throughout the entire city. By the end of November the red light cameras were taken down. however, all citations issued are still valid and must be paid by the offenders. On May 4, 2010 an ordinance authorizing the use of speed cameras in the town of Sykesville, Maryland was put to a referendum, in which 321 out of 529 voters (60.4%) voted against the cameras. The turnout for this vote was greater than the number of voters in the previous local Sykesville election for mayor where 523 residents voted.

Various legal issues arise from such cameras and the laws involved in how cameras can be placed and what evidence is necessary to prosecute a driver varies considerably in different legal systems. In some areas the cameras themselves have been ruled illegal. Other issues surround the actual type approval of cameras.

One issue is the potential conflict of interest when private contractors are paid a commission based on the number of tickets they are able to issue. Pictures from the San Diego red light camera systems were ruled inadmissible as court evidence in September 2001. The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made evidence from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted".

Other U.S. states and provinces of Canada such as Alberta are "owner liability" jurisdictions where the issue of driver identification is avoided by not issuing demerit points for camera infractions. Instead, the registered owner of the vehicle must pay all such fines regardless of whether he was driving at the time of the offense. Most U.S. jurisdictions release the owner from liability if he signs a form identifying the actual driver and that individual pays the fine. However, the resulting lack of long-term repercussions for repeated speed limit enforcement camera offenses has been criticized by some as giving a "license to speed" to those who can more easily afford speeding fines. This is overcome in Denmark where the offender is fined a percentage of their salary, effectively punishing all offenders equally.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the city government attempted to bypass the legal issue of a defendant's right to cross-examine his accuser, as well as the issue of verifying the driver's identity. Automated red-light and speeding offenses are classed as public nuisances and fined to the vehicle's registered owner as civil violations, not as criminal offenses.

Gallery

• 
  A red-light and speed camera in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
• 
  Dazzle camouflaged speed camera in Loipersdorf, Austria
• 
  A red-light camera in use in Beaverton, Oregon, USA

See also

• Road traffic safety
• Road traffic control
• Speed limit enforcement
• Speed enforcement in Australia
• Safety Camera Partnership
• Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution-which has been used to limit use of speed cameras in the USA.
• HOTA
• Radar gun

External links

• List of companies manufacturing photo enforcement technology roadtraffic-technology.com
• Rethinking red-light cameras by Bob Barr, former U.S. Congressman (U.S.)