Should Red-Light Cameras be Legal?

By Gary Biller, NMA President

Red-light cameras threaten the public interest in critical ways and should be outlawed across the country.

Fifteen states already have banned automated traffic enforcement, mostly on constitutional grounds. Several key tenets of a citizen’s due process rights are violated by red-light camera ticketing. Among them:

  • There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation. The defendant loses the right to cross examine his accuser in court.
  • The driver is not positively identified by the camera, so the default is to charge the vehicle’s registered owner with the violation. The owner, who may not have been the driver, is presumed guilty. A bedrock principle of our justice system – a defendant is innocent until proven guilty – is unceremoniously jettisoned.
  • The chain of custody of photo evidence is murky at best, shifting electronically between the camera vendor and the local police department before a ticket is issued. Yet rarely is a representative of the red-light camera company made available to testify in court as to the gathering, handling, or interpretation of the evidence.

On the latter point, several appellate courts in California have thrown out lower court ticket camera convictions on the basis that the photo evidence was hearsay. The rulings noted that there were no witnesses in court to testify about that evidence.

All states should join Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin in banning automated enforcement by ticket camera.

Within the states that continue to permit photo enforcement, there have been 24 local elections since 1991 that presented voters with the choice to keep or eliminate the cameras. In all but one instance ticket camera programs were defeated.

The one exception occurred last November, when the voters of East Cleveland, Ohio, narrowly approved the retention of red-light cameras. The mayor of East Cleveland forewarned his constituents that the elimination of the cameras – more specifically the camera revenue – would force the city to fire dozens of police officers and firefighters. It is not hard to imagine that East Cleveland voters felt coerced into keeping the ticket cameras.

Red-light cameras are a money-making enterprise for the cities that deploy them and for the camera vendors who build their business profitability around the ticketing machines. Proponents claim that cameras improve intersection safety by deterring red-light running and by ticketing rolling-right-turn-on-red drivers. Yet numerous studies, including an investigative report by The Washington Post, have shown accident rates increasing by double-digit percentages after the introduction of cameras.

Red-light cameras do not improve intersection safety, they degrade it. If the cameras significantly reduced infractions, they would eventually vanish from the landscape. But cameras only disappear when they aren’t making a profit. A recent example is the demise of the Los Angeles, California, red-light camera program. Another is the elimination of red-light cameras by several North Carolina cities in the mid to late 2000s after a higher court ruled that 90 percent of ticket camera revenue in the state had to be applied to public education programs.

If traffic safety is the true goal, increase the yellow light duration at problem intersections by one second and watch red-light violation rates drop by 50 percent or more. Several cities have done just that, including Loma Linda, California which realized an immediate and lasting 92 percent reduction in red-light offenses.

Banning red-light cameras nationwide will allow motorists to regain the due process rights afforded all citizens, and will punctuate the conclusion that ticket cameras are about revenue, not safety.


This article originally appeared on the U.S News & World Report website as part of a two-part series on red-light cameras. The other side of the argument is presented here.

Not an NMA Member yet?

Join today and get these great benefits!

Leave a Comment

2 Responses to “Should Red-Light Cameras be Legal?”

  1. Celeste Cunningham says:

    Originally I voted for the cameras( I live in Virginia Beach City) having witnessed several cars going through red lights and understanding the danger that posed. However, it has indeed become a cash cow for the City. Neighboring City Norfolk does not have cameras and crossing that narrow City line has caught drivers unaware. The notice of the camera locations are usually hidden in low places behind trees.

    I certainly believe offenders should be caught and punished according to the law. However, planning to profit from this offense leaves open the opportunity for dishonest persons to misuse their positions.

  2. Lawrence Hayward Jr. says:

    Boca Raton, Florida decided to install red light cameras at several intersections. Each camera costs nearly $60,000 dollars. A small portion of the fines levied (If not fought in court) goes to the city. The rest to the manufacturer and installer of the cameras. We spent over one week checking out these cameras and found:
    1:They flash (Take a photo) EVEN IF NO VEHICLES are at intersections. (Evident at Clintmoore road and Congress Avenues.
    2: At this same location, there is a traffic light right next to the Camera installation, and 30 feet further,the main traffic lights at the intersection, making for a strong court case against any violations.
    3:This news desk has received one 130 calls and letters complaining about these installations, and the increase of rear end collisions.
    4:Drivers fearing traffic tickets if they pass a red light when Fire, ambulances, and emergency vehicles approach DO NOT MOVE for fear of receiving a ticket.
    5:As of May 14th 2012, over seventeen states have removed these intrusive installations, which, in the long run actuality are losing funds to cities and counties.