Traffic enforcement camera

Gatso speed camera
A Speed camera photographed in Mong Kok, Hong Kong, across Langham Place

A traffic enforcement camera (also red light camera, road safety camera, road rule camera, photo radar, photo enforcement, speed camera, Gatso, safety camera, bus lane camera, flash for cash, Safe-T-Cam, depending on use) is a camera which may be mounted beside or over a road 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, or for recording vehicles inside a congestion charge area. It may be linked to an automated ticketing system.

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 potential 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 which found that human rights were not being breached. Some groups, such as the National Motorists Association in the USA, claim that systems "encourage ... revenue-driven enforcement" rather than the declared objectives.[1]

Types

Automatic speed enforcement gantry or "Lombada Eletrônica" with ground sensors in Brasília, 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 enforcement

Some bus lane enforcement cameras use a sensor in the road, which triggers a number plate recognition camera which compares the vehicle registration plate with a list of approved vehicles and records images of other vehicles.[2] Other systems use a camera mounted on the bus, for example in London where they monitor Red routes[3] on which stopping is not allowed for any purpose (other than taxis and disabled parking permit holders).[4]

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 adjudicated by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.[5]

In October 2013, in Melbourne (Australia), Melbourne Airport introduce 7 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras in their bus forecourt to monitor bus lanes and provide charging points based on vehicle type and the dwell time of each vehicle. Entry and Exit cameras determine the length of stay and provide alerts for unregistered or vehicles of concern via onscreen, email or SMS based alerts. This system was the first of several Sensor Dynamics based ANPR solutions.[6][7]

Melbourne Airport were the first Australian Airport to use ANPR technology to charge buses for access bus pick up lanes.

Red light enforcement

Main article: Red light camera
Redflex red light camera in Springfield, Ohio, USA.

A red light camera is a traffic camera that takes an image of a vehicle that goes through an intersection where the light is red. 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.[8]

Speed limit enforcement

Speed enforcement cameras are used to monitor compliance with speed limits, which may use Doppler radar, 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, and 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.[9]

Stop sign enforcement

See also: Stop sign

In 2007, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), in California, installed the first stop sign cameras in the United States. The five cameras are located in state parks such as Franklin Canyon Park and Temescal Gateway Park. The operator, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., is paid $20 per ticket. The fine listed on the citation is $100.[10] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against MRCA.[11]

Number plate recognition systems

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.[12]

In Australia's SAFE-T-CAM system, ANPR technology is used to monitor long distance truck drivers to detect avoidance of legally prescribed driver rest periods.[13]

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.[14][15]

In the UK an 80-year-old pensioner John Catt and his daughter Linda were stopped by City of London Police while driving in London, UK in 2005. They 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.[16]

Other

Fixed camera systems can be housed in boxes, or mounted 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.[20]

Mobile speed cameras may be hand-held, tripod mounted, or vehicle-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 also be used from vehicles.[21]

Controversy

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.[22]

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".[23]

Some U.S. states and provinces of Canada, such as Alberta operate "owner liability", where it is the registered owner of the vehicle who must pay all such fines, regardless who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense, although they do release the owner from liability if he or she identifies the actual driver and that person pays the fine.[24]

In a few U.S. states (including California), the cameras are set up to get a "face photo" of the driver.[25] This has been done because in those states red light camera tickets are criminal violations, and criminal charges must always name the actual violator. In California, that need to identify the actual violator has led to the creation of a unique investigatory tool, the fake "ticket."[26][27][28][29]

In April, 2000, two motorists who were caught speeding in the United Kingdom challenged the Road Traffic Act 1988, which required the keeper of a car to identify the driver at a particular time[30] as being in contradiction to the Human Rights Act 1998 on the grounds that it amounted to a 'compulsory confession', also that since the camera partnerships included the police, local authorities, Magistrates Courts Service (MCS) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which had a financial interest in the fine revenue that they would not get a fair trial. Their plea was initially granted by a judge then overturned but was the heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights found there was no breach of article 6 in requiring the keepers of cars caught speeding on camera to provide the name of the driver.[30]

Accuracy

In December, 2012, Speed Camera Contractor Xerox Corporation admitted that cameras they had deployed in Baltimore city were producing erroneous speed readings, and that 1 out of every 20 citations issued at some locations were due to errors.[31] The erroneous citations included at least one issued to a completely stationary car, a fact revealed by a recorded video of the alleged violation.[32]

In the city of Fort Dodge, Iowa, speed camera contractor Redspeed discovered a location where drivers of school buses, big panel trucks and similar vehicles have been clocked speeding by the city's mobile speed camera and radar unit even though they were obeying the 25 mph speed limit. The errors were due to what was described as an "electromagnetic anomaly".[33]

Where verification photos are recorded on a time sequence, allowing the calculation of actual speed, these have been used to challenge the accuracy of speed cameras in court. Motorists in Prince George's County, Maryland, have successfully challenged tickets from Optotraffic speed cameras where they were incorrectly ticketed at over 15 mph over the limit.[34] However, Prince George County no longer allows time-distance calculations as a defense in cases where "the equipment was calibrated and validated, or is self calibrating".[35] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards for "across the road radar" state that "If the ATR device is to be considered for unattended operation, the manufacturer shall provide a secondary method for verifying that the evidential recorded image properly identifies the target vehicle and reflects this vehicle’s true speed, as described in §5.18.2. This may be accomplished by means of a second, appropriately delayed image showing the target vehicle crossing a specified reference line."[36]

Surveillance

Revenue, not safety

Unpopularity

Claims of popular support are disputed by elections in the US, where the camera companies often sue to keep it off the ballot, and camera enforcement often loses by a wide margin. Automated enforcement is opposed by some motorists and motoring organizations as strictly for revenue generating. They have also been rejected in some places by referendum.

Effectiveness

Critical response

Online websites, like Photo Radar Scam and BantheCams.org, have been created in reaction to the rising use of traffic cameras. Their primary goal, as stated by BantheCams.org, is to “educate and equip local citizens with a way to combat the abuse of power now being exercised by local and state governments with the regards to the use of electronic surveillance devices.”[67]

Groups like NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) have encouraged the usage of automated speed enforcement to help improve general road safety and to decrease crash rates.[68]

Avoidance/evasion

A GPS map showing speed camera POI information overlaid onto it

To avoid detection or prosecution, drivers may:

In August, 2010, a fast driving Swedish driver reportedly avoided several older model speed cameras, but was detected by a new model, as traveling at 300 km/h (186 mph), resulting in the world's second largest speeding fine to date.

In the past, it was possible to avoid detection by changing lanes when SPECS average speed cameras were in use as they measured a vehicle's speed over distance in one lane only.[71] Since 2007, measures were taken to mitigate this limitation. Although the cameras do operate in pairs on single lanes (it is a limitation of the technology not a restriction in the type approval) the authorities now install the cameras such that the monitored length of road overlaps between multiple camera pairs. The driver cannot tell which cameras are 'entry' and which are 'exit' making it difficult to know when to change lane.[72][73]

History

Device for speed control in the Hague, newsreel from October 1940
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.[74]

The Dutch company Gatsometer BV, which was founded in 1958 by rally driver Maurice Gatsonides, produced the 'Gatsometer'.[75] Gatsonides wished to better monitor his average speed on a race track and invented the device in order to improve his lap times. The company later started supplying these devices as police speed enforcement tools.[76] The first systems introduced in the late 1960s used film cameras to take their pictures. Gatsometer introduced the first red light camera in 1965, the first radar for use with road traffic in 1971 and the first mobile speed traffic camera in 1982;[75]

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 lower maintenance and are now more popular with law enforcement agencies.[77]

See also

References

  1. "National Motorists Association Issues". National Motorists Association. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  2. "Bus Lane Enforcement". PIPS Technology. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
  3. "Bus lane enforcement". jai. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
  4. "Road markings" (PDF). direct.gov. Retrieved 2010-04-01.
  5. New York City Department of Transportation: Commissioner Sadik-Khan, MTA Executive Director Sander, Chairman Daus announce camera enforcement of bus lanes to speed transit, Nyc.gov, February 23, 2009
  6. "Melbourne Airport Forecourt Redevelopment Project". Melbourneairport.com.au. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  7. "Melbourne Airport Bus Lane". Airport shuttle service, shuttle buses. VHA Airport Shuttle.
  8. 1 2 3 Baratian-Ghorghi, Fatemeh; Zhou, Huaguo; Wasilefsky, Isaac (2015). "Effect of Red-Light Cameras on Capacity of Signalized Intersections". Journal of Transportation Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000804.
  9. "Basic Concept of Operation". Sensordynamics.com.au. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
  10. Pool, Bob (2007-07-12). "Stop or they'll shoot!". Los Angeles Times.
  11. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 18, 2012. Retrieved May 7, 2011.
  12. 1 2 John Lettice (2005-09-15). "Gatso 2: rollout of UK's '24x7 vehicle movement database' begins". The Register. Retrieved 2008-10-14.
  13. "Safe-T-Cam". Roads and Traffic Authority. May 29, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
  14. "Launch of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Strategy for the Police Service – 2005/2008". Association of Chief Police Officers. 2005-03-22. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  15. Chris Williams (2008-09-15). "Vehicle spy-cam data to be held for five years". The Register. Retrieved 2008-10-15.
  16. "SchNEWS 625 - Sussex Police try to close down Smash EDO film, Big Brother Britain, Depleted Uranium raid, and more...". Schnews.org.uk. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  17. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on October 7, 2007. Retrieved October 10, 2007.
  18. "Street-sweeper cameras eye illegal parking". The Washingtion Times.
  19. Transport for London, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL, [email protected]. "Bus lanes". tfl.gov.uk.
  20. "Hidden speed camera". English.controlRadar.org. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  21. "Vyper Mobile ANPR System". Sensordynamics.com.au. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
  22. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 9, 2009. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
  23. State of California vs John Allen, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego) (“The statute contemplated that it would be a governmental agency that operated the system, not private enterprise. The potential conflict created by a contingent method of compensation further undermines the trustworthiness of the evidence which is used to prosecute red light violations. The evidence obtained from the red light camera system as presently operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted”). Text
  24. "Liability of owner for speeding and traffic light violations". The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the contravention of section 140, 146 (1), (3), (5) or (7), 147 or 148 (1) if evidence of the contravention was gathered through the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device... prescribed traffic light safety device... An owner is not liable under subsection (2) or (2.1) if the owner establishes that (a) the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle was not entrusted by the owner with possession, or (b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence in entrusting the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.
  25. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 6, 2011. Retrieved May 18, 2011.
  26. "(Fighting) Your Ticket - Red Light Cameras in California". Highwayrobbery.net. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  27. David Goldstein, CBS Television, Los Angeles "Are police tricking people into paying Snitch Tickets?"
  28. "The Right To Remain Silent". www.almanacnews.com. 8 November 2011. Retrieved 18 November 2011.
  29. "Something Every Consumer Should Know". www.HandelontheLaw.com. 27 March 2009. Retrieved 18 November 2011.
  30. 1 2 "O'Halloran and Francis v. The United Kingdom". Cmiskp.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  31. "Some Baltimore speed cameras have 5% error rate, Xerox says". Tribunedigital-baltimoresun. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  32. "Baltimore issued speed camera ticket to car stopped at red light". Tribunedigital-baltimoresun. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  33. "Chief cites 'Bermuda Triangle'". Messengernews.net. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  34. David Hill. "Business owner casts reasonable doubt on accuracy of speed cameras". The Washington Times.
  35. "Maryland: Innocence Not a Defense to Speed Camera Citations". the newspaper.com. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
  36. "Speed-Measuring Device Performance Specifications:Across-the-Road Radar Module" (PDF). NHTSA.gov. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  37. Miranda Devine (2008-03-23). "Even the Safest Driver is Being Set Up to Fail". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
  38. "Group claims speed camera nets £1.3m a year in fines". BBC News. 2010-07-08. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  39. "Anger at £1.3m-a-year speed camera - Channel 4 News". Channel4.com. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  40. Massey, Ray (2010-05-14). "Labour's 13-year war on the motorist is over: Tories pledge to halt rise of speed cameras, road pricing and cowboy clampers". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 2010-10-08.
  41. Millward, David (2010-07-26). "Treasury set to cash in on speeding fines". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2016-06-30. The decision to reduce the Road Safety Grant £95 million to £57 million this year means that the Government could raise as much as £40 million more from speeding fines than it hands back to local authorities to reduce death and injury on the country’s roads.
  42. 1 2 3 David Barrett (2010-08-07). "Speed camera switch-off sees fewer accidents". London: Telegraph. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  43. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 13, 2012. Retrieved August 23, 2010.
  44. "Lack of police funds could end South West speed cameras". BBC. 2010-07-22. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  45. "Speed camera turn-off starts". Mirror.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  46. Adam Gabbatt (2010-08-09). "Cutting funding for speed cameras will cost lives, police warn". London: Guardian.
  47. Freddie Whittaker. "Speed cameras will stay in Gloucestershire - but no more maintenance". This Is Gloucestershire.
  48. 1 2 3 4 "Oxfordshire's speed cameras to be switched back on". News Oxford. BBC. 2011-04-01. Retrieved 2011-07-15.
  49. 'Say Cheese Speeders: Pasadena to Test Photo Radar' by Ashley Dunn in The Los Angeles Times, September 17, 1987
  50. 'Photocop didn't play in Peoria', by Wayne Baker in The Chicago Tribune, March 21, 1991
  51. Poole, Oliver (2002-04-12). "Angry drivers force Hawaii to drop speed cameras". London: Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
  52. Mitchell-Taverner, Zipparo and Goldsworthy. "Survey on Speeding and Enforcement" (PDF). Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
  53. "Red-light Cameras in Texas: A Status Report" (PDF). Hro.house.state.tx.us. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  54. Rodier, Shaheen, and Cavanagh. "Automated Speed Enforcement in the U.S.: A Review of the Literature on Benefits and Barriers to Implementation" (PDF). Retrieved 17 December 2012.
  55. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 8, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  56. "Department of Public Safety - Photo enforcement program" (PDF). Azauditor.gov. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  57. "Arizona Speed Contract" (PDF). Redflex.com. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  58. "Town ditches fixed speed cameras". BBC. 2009-07-31.
  59. "Tory Boy Racers | George Monbiot". Monbiot.com. 2010-07-26. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  60. Wilson, C; Willis, Hendrikz; Le Brocque, Bellamy (2010). "Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths.". The Cochrane Library (10): CD004607. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub3. PMID 20927736.
  61. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on September 26, 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
  62. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 5, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
  63. Hugh McGee (2003). NCHRP Synthesis 310. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. p. 12.
  64. "The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras" (PDF). Racfoundation.ortg. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  65. "Town ditches fixed speed cameras". BBC News. 31 July 2009. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  66. Katie Bond (2012-03-21). "Town tops league for safest driving". Thisiswiltshire.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  67. "About BantheCams.org". BantheCams.org. Retrieved 2016-06-30. BanTheCams.org was created to organize, educate and equip local citizens with a way to combat the abuse of power now being exercised by local and state governments with the regards to the use of electronic surveillance devices.
  68. "Demonstration of Automated Speed Enforcement in School Zones in Portland, Oregon" (PDF). Westat, Inc. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  69. Australian Transport Council (2011). Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 (PDF). p. 62.
  70. "Vehicle license plate imaging and reading system for day and night".
  71. "Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes". The Evening Standard. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  72. "UK | Magazine | How do average speed cameras work?". BBC News. 2007-10-17. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  73. "Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes". London Evening Standard. 2006-10-15. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  74. "Time Recording Camera for Trapping Motorists". Popular Mechanics. Vol. 7 no. 9. Hearst Magazines. September 1905. p. 926. ISSN 0032-4558.
  75. 1 2 "GATSO, the experts in traffic enforcement". Gatso.nl. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  76. Information, Reed Business (1961-12-14). "Netherlands: Precision Speed Trap". New Scientist. p. 687.
  77. David Lowe (2005). The Transport Manager's and Operator's Handbook 2006. Kogan Page Publishers. p. 239. ISBN 0-7494-4488-6.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Speed cameras.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 9/29/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.