Page 1

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Enforcement

CAMERA SYSTEMS

Operational Guidelines

SPEED

FORWARD

Speeding is one of the major causes of crashes, deaths, and injuries on the Nation’s roadways.

Speeding has consistently been a contributing cause in approximately 30 percent of all motor vehicle

crashes over the last 10 years. The primary reason for managing traffic speeds is safety. The National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) support a comprehensive approach to speed management.

Speed management involves engineering, enforcement, and education as components in a compre-

hensive approach to controlling excessive speeds. Speed management requires applying road design

elements and engineering measures to obtain appropriate speeds; setting speed limits that are ra-

tional, safe, and reasonable; and applying highly visible and well publicized enforcement efforts that

focus on crash producing violators. Reducing speeding-related crashes, injuries and deaths is the goal

of speed management. Research has shown that free flow travel speeds within 5 to 10 mph of the

posted speed limit has the potential to reduce serious injury and fatal crashes and produces even

greater benefits when the most egregious speeders are targeted.

Automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems are an important element in speed management and

can be a very effective countermeasure to prevent speeding-related crashes. However, when used,

ASE is a supplement to, not a replacement for, traditional enforcement operations. Advantages

of ASE include: the ability to increase safety for law enforcement officers by implementing ASE in ar-

eas where traditional traffic stops are dangerous or infeasible due to roadway design, the ability to

continuously enforce the speed limit, and reductions in traffic congestion sometimes caused by driver

distraction at traffic stops.

The ASE guidelines are intended to serve program managers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic

engineers, program evaluators, and other individuals responsible for the strategic vision and daily op-

erations of the program. The guidelines are written from a U.S. perspective and emphasize U.S. con-

texts and best practices. However, they are also drawn from the experiences of exemplary programs

internationally. Though international differences in law, history, and culture might influence best prac-

tices for ASE, the majority of these guidelines are relevant to ASE programs worldwide.

The guidelines are intended to be accessible and inclusive, with an emphasis on presenting options

and describing the advantages, particularly in increased traffic flow and reduced congestion, and dis-

advantages of each, so that an ASE program can be tailored to the needs of a particular jurisdiction.

The technological state of the practice in ASE is developing rapidly. Some specific technologies are

described, but rather than focus on the capabilities of current technologies, the emphasis is on identi-

fying the functional requirements that technologies must meet so that the guidelines remain relevant

as technologies evolve.

It is important to explain the philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program through communica-

tions and marketing programs, public meetings, and hearings. ASE should be described as a tool that

can enhance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and that ASE will supplement, rather than re-

place, traffic stops by law enforcement officers. The public should be made aware that ASE is used to

improve safety, not to generate revenue or impose “big brother” surveillance. Saying this will not nec-

essarily make it so in the eyes of the public, so it is important to explain how each element of the ASE

program puts safety first and how controls are in place to prevent misuse of the system.

i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

Background ..................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and scope of the guidelines...........................................................................................3

Chapter 2: General Considerations and Planning............................................................................5

Ensure legal and policy authority for ASE....................................................................................5

Identify speeding-related safety problems ...................................................................................7

Develop a strategic plan...............................................................................................................7

Identify countermeasures.............................................................................................................8

Obtain interagency and community support ................................................................................9

Seek experience and lessons from managers of existing programs .........................................10

Determine nature of violation and penalty .................................................................................10

Identify enforcement equipment alternatives .............................................................................12

System components ..............................................................................................................12

ASE system platforms............................................................................................................13

Identify requirements and resources needed for ASE program ................................................16

Chapter 3: Program Startup ..................................................................................................17

Site selection..............................................................................................................................17

Selection factors ....................................................................................................................17

Road types.............................................................................................................................18

Evaluation of candidate sites .................................................................................................19

System procurement ..................................................................................................................20

Coordination with courts.............................................................................................................20

Information management: compatibility, flow, and security .......................................................20

Program evaluation plan ............................................................................................................21

Marketing and media activities (initial).......................................................................................21

Promote awareness of ASE program ....................................................................................21

Promote acceptance of ASE program ...................................................................................22

Information outlets .................................................................................................................23

Public input ............................................................................................................................25

Continuing public information and education after startup ....................................................26

Program rollout and warning period...........................................................................................26

Chapter 4: Operations ....................................................................................................................27

Enforcement plan .......................................................................................................................27

Enforcement speed threshold................................................................................................27

Overt versus covert enforcement...........................................................................................28

Signage.... ..............................................................................................................................28

Days and hours of operation..................................................................................................29

ASE strategy and scheduling.................................................................................................31

Immediate driver feedback.....................................................................................................33

Coordination with other traffic law enforcement efforts .........................................................33

Ongoing improvements to enforcement plan.........................................................................34

Field operations..........................................................................................................................34

Operator staffing and training ................................................................................................34

Unit location and setup procedures .......................................................................................35

Event documentation .............................................................................................................35

Data transfer ..........................................................................................................................36

Equipment maintenance and calibration................................................................................36

Chapter 5: Violation Notice Processing and Delivery.....................................................................37

Distribution of responsibilities ....................................................................................................37

Violation validation .....................................................................................................................37

Matching violation information to driver and vehicle records.....................................................37

Delivery to recipients..................................................................................................................38

Review and quality control procedures......................................................................................38

Status tracking ...........................................................................................................................38

Timeliness of processing............................................................................................................39

Chapter 6: Violation Notice Receipt and Adjudication....................................................................40

Information on violation notice ...................................................................................................40

Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice ...........................................................40

Options for violation notice recipient..........................................................................................41

Accept responsibility ..............................................................................................................41

Deny responsibility.................................................................................................................41

Contest violation ....................................................................................................................41

Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice .....................................................42

Violation notices issued to government and business vehicles.................................................42

Accessibility of violation notice...................................................................................................43

Additional help and support .......................................................................................................43

Chapter 7: Program Evaluation ......................................................................................................44

Basic program monitoring ..........................................................................................................44

Statistical evaluation of crash effects and speed effects ...........................................................44

Crash effects..........................................................................................................................46

Speed effects .........................................................................................................................46

ii

Evaluation of public awareness and acceptance ...........................................................................46

References .....................................................................................................................................48

Appendix A: Further Reading .......................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Summary of ASE Practice in the United States.......................................................A-5

Appendix C. Photo Red Light Enforcement Legal Considerations ………………………………A-5

Appendix D: ASE Unit Setup Checklist for Beaverton, Oregon .................................................A-16

Appendix E: Sample Citation for Charlotte, North Carolina .......................................................A-27

Appendix F: List of Jurisdictions Using ASE Programs..............................................................A-19

iii

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Mobile ASE units in Portland, OR, (top), Scottsdale, AZ, (center),

and San Jose, CA, (bottom).................................................................................................. 14

Figure 2. Pole-mounted ASE system in Washington, DC..................................................................... 15

Figure 3. Advertisement on rear of city buses in Washington, DC........................................................ 25

Figure 4. Optional regulatory signs specified in the MUTCD ................................................................ 29

Figure 5. General signage in Scottsdale, AZ, (left) and Washington, DC (right) .................................. 29

Figure 6. Fixed advance signage (clockwise from upper left): Boulder, CO; Washington, DC;

San Jose, CA; San Jose, CA (again); Scottsdale, AZ; Portland, OR ................................... 30

Figure 7. Temporary advance signage in Charlotte, NC, (left) and Scottsdale, AZ, (right) .................. 30

Figure 8. Mobile ASE unit with speed display board in Portland, OR ................................................... 33

Figure 9. Portable speed display board................................................................................................. 34

List of Tables

Table 1. Common arguments against ASE and appropriate responses............................................... 23

Table 2. Ways to achieve site-specific and jurisdiction-wide speeding reductions …………………….38

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Excessive speed is one of the leading factors that contribute to traffic crashes. Speeding-related

crashes are responsible for an estimated $40.4 billion in economic losses each year and were associ-

ated with the loss of 13,5431 lives (31% of all highway fatalities) in 2006 (National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 2007). Law enforcement agencies fulfill a crucial role in speed management

through the deterrent effects of well-publicized speed enforcement programs. Highly visible, sustained

speed enforcement reduces the incidence of speeding-related crashes (Povey, Frith, & Deall, 2003),

and heightened levels of enforcement can further improve speed limit compliance and extend compli-

ance for a greater period of time after heightened enforcement ends (Elliot & Broughton, 2004).

An automated speed enforcement (ASE) program can be an effective supplement to traditional speed

enforcement operations as widespread knowledge of its use amplifies the enforcement program’s abil-

ity to reduce speeds and speeding-related crashes. ASE programs worldwide have demonstrated the

ability to reduce speeding and crashes beyond the effects observed with traditional speed enforce-

ment alone (e.g., Pilkington & Kinra, 2005; Cunningham, Hummer, & Moon, 2005). The “Speed-

Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines” have been prepared to assist program man-

agers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and others responsible

for the operations of ASE programs in planning and operating ASE systems as a component of a

comprehensive speed management program.

BACKGROUND

ASE is a method of traffic speed enforcement that is used to detect speeding violations and record

identifying information about the vehicle and/or driver. Violation evidence is processed and reviewed in

an office environment and violation notices are delivered to the registered owners of identified vehicles

after the alleged violation occurs. ASE, if used, is one technology available to law enforcement as a

supplement and not a replacement for traditional enforcement operations.

Evaluations2 of ASE, both internationally and in the United States have identified some advantages

over traditional speed enforcement methods. These include:

High rate of violation detection. ASE units can detect and record multiple violations per min-

ute. This can provide a strong deterrent effect by increasing drivers’ perceived likelihood of be-

ing cited for speeding.

Physical safety of ASE operators and motorists. ASE can operate at locations where roadside

traffic stops are dangerous or infeasible, and where traffic conditions are unsafe for police ve-

hicles to enter the traffic stream and stop suspected violators. With ASE there is normally no

vehicle pursuit or confrontation with motorists. ASE might also reduce the occurrence of traffic

congestion due to driver distraction caused by traffic stops on the roadside.

Fairness of operation. Violations are recorded for all vehicles traveling in excess of the en-

forcement speed threshold.

Efficient use of resources. ASE can act as a “force multiplier,” enhancing the influence of lim-

ited traffic enforcement staff and resources.

•

•

•

•

Although ASE has some advantages, the aforementioned evaluations of ASE systems have also iden-

tified some limitations. These include:

1 NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver involved in the crash is charged with a

speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicates that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or

exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. (Analysis of Speeding-Related

Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes. Technical Report, DOT HS 809 839, August 2005. Washington,

DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.)

2 Refer to Appendix A: Further Reading

2

•

•

•

•

ASE does not immediately stop speeding drivers. Unlike traditional enforcement, ASE does

not intercept speeding drivers. This allows the driver to possibly continue at unsafe speeds.

Limited scope of enforcement and lack of direct contact with motorists. ASE units typically only

enforce speeding violations; other illegal activities are not enforced simultaneously. Although

photo enforcement has the potential to enforce certain violations such as driving without a

seatbelt as a secondary offense, the lack of direct contact between police and motorists

means that police may not have the opportunity to observe suspicious activities and identify

additional offenses such as impaired driving.

Specialization of ASE services. In many jurisdictions where ASE is used, ASE operators and

vehicles cannot perform any task other than ASE. Often the person monitoring the system is a

civilian, or the vehicle used is not suitable for enforcement activities. This restricts the ability to

conduct other law enforcement duties and respond to emergencies.

Time lag between violation and penalty. When an ASE violation is recorded, the alleged viola-

tor might not be aware of the violation until the violation notice arrives in the mail days or

weeks later, which may dissociate the violating behavior from the penalty. The immediate

specific deterrence effect on the violator is therefore lost.

ASE is currently used in dozens of countries around the world and in about 30 U.S. jurisdictions, rang-

ing in size from small towns to large cities. Appendix B lists many of the jurisdictions that conduct

ASE and provides some basic information about the programs, including whether the vehicle owner

or the driver is responsible for the citation (see Chapter 2: Determine nature of violation and penalty)

and whether the jurisdiction uses mobile ASE units, fixed ASE units, or both (see Chapter 2:

Identify enforcement equipment alternatives), their practices, evaluations of their effectiveness, and

public reactions.

The effects of ASE operations on traffic speeds and crashes have been studied for more than two

decades. Pilkington and Kinra (2005) conducted a systematic review of 14 major studies published

between 1992 and 2003 on the effects of ASE on traffic crashes. Most of the reviewed studies were

conducted in the United Kingdom and Australia, two countries with substantial and long-running ASE

programs; Pilkington and Kinra did not include U.S. studies in this evaluation. All of the studies re-

ported positive effects of ASE on crashes, injuries, and fatalities, although the magnitude of the effects

varied widely between studies. The results of the review indicate that ASE, when properly used, does

lead to a reduction in crashes, though the authors note that the actual magnitude of the effects are

unclear due to methodological limitations in all of the reviewed studies.

In the United States, ASE was adopted later than in Europe and Australia. However, in recent years

there has been a substantial increase in the number of communities that use ASE as a part of their

speed management and traffic law enforcement strategy. Like their European counterparts, ASE pro-

grams in the United States have been evaluated and have been responsible for reductions in speed-

ing and speeding-related crashes.

In Oregon, Senate Bill 382, which passed in 1995, authorized a two-year demonstration of ASE and

mandated an evaluation of the program (Cities of Beaverton and Portland, 1997). Both cities collected

speed data before and after the ASE program began at enforced sites and at control sites. During the

four months of focused enforcement of five problematic sites, the proportion of vehicles traveling more

than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased from 18 percent to 13 percent. During the same time

there was a slight increase in speeding at control sites in Beaverton.

In Beaverton, the proportion of vehicles traveling more than 5 mph above the speed limit decreased

from 19 percent to 13 percent at enforced sites. During the same period there was a slight increase in

speeding at control sites, which reinforces the conclusion that the benefit was real.

The project team also evaluated public awareness and acceptance of ASE. Approximately eight

months after ASE began, 85 percent of Beaverton residents and 88 percent of Portland residents were

aware of the demonstration project and public approval of photo radar in school zones increased to 88

percent in Beaverton and to 89 percent in Portland. Approval for photo radar use in residential

neighborhoods also increased during that time period.

A 2003 evaluation of the ASE program in Washington, DC, found that six months after enforcement

began at seven ASE sites there was an 82-percent decrease in the proportion of vehicles exceeding

the speed limit by more than 10 mph and a 14-percent decrease in mean speed during enforcement

hours relative to eight control sites (Retting & Farmer, 2003). Statistics on the Metropolitan Police De-

partment Web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov) indicate that, in 2006, about 2 percent of vehicles observed by

ASE units were speeding above the enforcement threshold. A 2003 telephone survey found that about

50 percent of WashingtonDC, residents approved of the ASE program and 36 percent disapproved

(Retting, 2003).

To evaluate the ASE program in Charlotte, NC, speed data were collected at 14 enforcement sites on

corridors known for frequent crashes and at 11 comparison sites (Cunningham et al., 2005) before and

after the start of ASE. The proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit

decreased 55 percent at enforced sites, relative to control sites, and crashes were reduced an esti-

mated 12 percent at enforced sites compared to expectations based upon crash statistics from 2000

through 2003. In focus groups with representatives from neighborhood associations, traffic engineers,

and police officers, attitudes toward ASE were generally positive, but all the participants had a preex-

isting interest in ASE and therefore may not have fully represented the population of Charlotte.

An independent evaluation of ASE was conducted on the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, AZ (Wash-

ington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). A total of six fixed cameras operated on a 6.5-mile section of

freeway with a 65 mph speed limit, with three cameras operating in each direction of travel. Prelimi-

nary findings indicate that the ASE units caused a mean speed reduction of more than 9 mph, from

73.5 mph to 64.2 mph during off-peak travel hours, a 50-percent reduction in crashes, and a 40-

percent reduction in crash-related injuries. Although rear-end crashes actually increased, there was

little or no increase in injuries associated with these crashes. The relatively small sample of crashes

may limit the reliability of these preliminary findings. The study authors estimate the annual economic

benefits of the freeway ASE program at $1.4 to $10.6 million. When enforcement was suspended at

the end of the demonstration period, the rate of detected speeding violations (greater than 76 mph)

increased by 836 percent.

3

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINES

The Speed-Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines provide guidance for the deploy-

ment and operation of an ASE program. The guidelines address the crucial components of an ASE

program, from planning and startup through field operations, violation processing and adjudication,

and program evaluation. Although the guidelines are divided into distinct sections, it is necessary to

consider all elements of an ASE program as an interrelated whole; no one aspect of an ASE program

can be developed without consideration of the others. For this reason, the guidelines are designed so

that readers can easily navigate between sections and find the information they need. The interrelation

of the various aspects of an ASE program is emphasized by cross-references throughout the docu-

ment that guides readers to additional information on a topic.

The Speed-Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines are intended to serve program

managers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and other individu-

als responsible for the planning and operation of the program. The guidelines are written from a United

States perspective and emphasize U.S. contexts and best practices. However, they are also drawn

from the experience of exemplary programs internationally. Though international differences in laws,

history, cultures, and so forth might influence best practices for ASE, the majority of these guidelines

are relevant to ASE programs worldwide.

The guidelines are intended to be accessible and inclusive with an emphasis on presenting options

and describing the advantages and disadvantages of each so that an ASE program can be tailored to

the needs of a particular jurisdiction. The technological state of the practice in ASE is developing rap-

idly. Some specific technologies are described, but rather than focus on the capabilities of current

technologies, the emphasis is on identifying the functional requirements that technologies must meet

so that the guidelines remain relevant as technologies evolve.

The Speed-Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines focus specifically on issues that are

directly related to ASE. For more general speed enforcement guidance, refer to:

4

•

•

•

•

•

Speed Enforcement Program Guidelines (NHTSA, 2008)

Guidelines for Developing a Municipal Speed Enforcement Program (NHTSA, 2000)

Beyond the Limits: A Law Enforcement Guide to Speed Enforcement (NHTSA, 1992)

Managing Speed (Transportation Research Board, 1998)

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 19: Speed Management (NHTSA, 2006)

More general guidance is provided by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2003), which

outlined a vision for effective traffic safety operations with strategies for program management, human

resource management, and use of technologies.3 A list of key documents related to ASE is presented

in Appendix A.

3 Traffic Safety Strategies for Law Enforcement A Planning Guide for Law Enforcement Executives,

Administrators and Managers, IACP, 2003

CHAPTER 2: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING

5

ENSURE LEGAL AND POLICY AUTHORITY FOR ASE

Legal authority is essential for ASE programs. The courts have consistently rejected the numerous

Constitutional challenges that critics of automated enforcement have raised to this type of enforce-

ment, by ruling that automated enforcement is consistent with U.S. and State Constitutions (Kendall,

2004). Some jurisdictions, however, have been required to correct operational inconsistencies

in their programs. An overview of legal issues relevant to ASE is provided by Gilbert, Sines, and Bell

(1996).4 A review of case law relevant to automated enforcement is presented in Appendix C. The

case law is also available in Appendix A of the Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines

(FWHA & NHTSA, 2005). Kendall (2004) addresses legal challenges that have been brought against

automated enforcement programs (both ASE and red light cameras) on Constitutional grounds. Some

of these challenges are part

broadly relevant:

icular to the practices of individual jurisdictions while others are more

•

•

•

•

•

Due process. “Some critics have alleged that automated enforcement violates the right to due

process for a number of reasons: not all drivers photographed receive tickets; an owner is

presumed to be the driver at the time of the violation; statutes do not specifically state where a

warning sign should be; it is presumed that the driver committed the offense; and the delay in

receiving the ticket for the violation is too long.”

Equal protection. “Other critics argued that automated enforcement violates the equal

protection doctrine of the 14th amendment. They make this claim because of the different

punishments between a ticket from a photographed violation and an on-the-spot officer en-

forced ticket…”

Fourth amendment. “Two suits have alleged that issuing a citation to a registered owner

of a photographed vehicle amounts to a seizure of the vehicle in violation of the search and

seizure clause of the 4th amendment.”

“Takings clause” of 5th amendment. “A suit in Denver, Colorado, charged that the city was vio-

lating the 5th amendment ‘takings clause’ by booting vehicles (placing a metal device on a ve-

hicle that does not allow the vehicle to move more than a few inches forward or backward)

whose owners had not paid their fines from automated enforcement.”

Privacy. “Although the issue of invasion of privacy is often raised by opponents of automated

enforcement no privacy challenges have been raised in court. This is probably because the is-

sue of privacy in a vehicle has been very well defined by the Supreme Court of the United

States. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees

to abide by certain rules including, for example, to obey traffic signals.”

Alcee, Black, Lau, Wendzel, & Lynn (1992) address many of these same potential challenges to

automated enforcement, but also address freedom of association. Critics may claim that automated

enforcement violates the 1st amendment right to freedom of association by discouraging individuals

from riding in the same vehicle with others with whom they would not want to be photographed. The

authors claim that this criticism is unfounded because (1) ASE does not infringe upon the freedom of

expressive association; (2) the protection of freedom of expressive association is specifically intended

to protect “groups organized for the purpose of expressing 1st amendment rights”; and (3) “photo-

radar clearly does not prevent individuals from engaging in intimate relationships with family members

or any other person…”

4 Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement. May 1,1997, TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP) Legal Research Digest 36.

In some States, specific enabling legislation is required to allow the use of ASE. In other States, ASE

can be implemented under existing laws, though in some cases challenges may arise if the original

intent of the law did not include ASE. Some States that permit red light camera enforcement have

already passed legislation that enables ASE. A few States, including New Jersey, Wisconsin, and

West Virginia, passed laws that explicitly forbid ASE. States also have different specific requirements

for ASE operations. For instance, California requires the presence of an officer to issue a speeding

citation. Oregon requires a speed display board on or near the ASE unit. Numerous ASE programs in

the United States have been found by courts to be operating in conflict with State or local laws, so it is

critical to ensure that the ASE program is established and operated in strict adherence to applicable

laws. Legal experts should review current and proposed laws to ensure that they explicitly permit ASE

and to ensure that there is no conflict between local and State laws. The Insurance Institute for High-

way Safety maintains a limited list of current State laws that are relevant to automated enforcement on

its Web site (www.iihs.org) and the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running maintains a list of

pending State legislation that would influence the use of automated enforcement on its Web site

(www.stopredlightrunning.com).

Even with legislation in place that enables ASE, there may still be hurdles to overcome before ASE

can be implemented. Often, local governments must specifically authorize ASE. The National Com-

mittee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) has developed a model law for automated

enforcement programs. The model law, which is available on the NCUTLO Web site

(www.ncutlo.org), conforms to certain assumptions that may not be applicable in all jurisdictions, but it

can serve as a guide for the development of enabling legislation and enforcement procedures. An-

other ASE model law is provided by Alcee et al. (1992).

One of the unique aspects of ASE is the need to match vehicle license plate information to vehicle

registration information. There are many challenges in identifying the proper recipient of the violation

notice, and the evidentiary requirements to prove guilt vary between States and jurisdictions. These

issues are addressed in Chapter 5.

When planning an ASE program, it is important to be aware of opposition and to confront challenges

when they arise and before committing substantial effort and resources to ASE. It is also important to

be aware of the mechanisms that can be used to challenge ASE. These include petitions and refer-

enda, introduction of disabling legislative bills, local government legislative bodies, and, indirectly, pub-

lic pressure on elected officials. Chapter 2: Obtain interagency and community support provides

guidance on obtaining support from stakeholders, and Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (ini-

tial) provide guidance on effective communications with the community.

It is also critical to understand all State and local laws relevant to ASE and to consider all possible in-

terpretations of these laws. For example, in May 2006, a North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling found

that automated enforcement program managers throughout the State improperly interpreted Article IX,

Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution, which states that “the clear proceeds of all penalties and

forfeitures and of all fines collected in the several counties for any breach of the penal laws of the

State, shall belong to and remain in the several counties, and shall be faithfully appropriated and used

exclusively for maintaining free public schools” (Lowery, 2006). The city of High Point, which was the

defendant in the case, argued that the city’s red light cameras imposed a civil penalty rather than a

fine, but the court ruled that the nature of the offense was the same, regardless of the method of pay-

ment collection. As a result, all jurisdictions in North Carolina using automated enforcement technol-

ogy were required to pay 90 percent of revenues to local school systems, plus back payments of pre-

viously collected revenues. The drastic reduction in recoupable revenues has led all automated en-

forcement programs in North Carolina to cease operations as a result of prohibitive costs.

An ASE program can also be rendered ineffective without being eliminated. In some States, legisla-

tive bills were introduced that would not explicitly forbid ASE, but would add infeasible operational re-

quirements or influence revenue flow in a way that would make programs prohibitively costly. For ex-

ample, Sub. H.B. 56 introduced in the Ohio legislature would require a police officer to be present dur-

ing ASE operation and to issue citations at the time and location of the alleged offense. Arizona

House Bill 2251 would have required all revenues from Scottsdale’s freeway ASE deployment to go to

a State highway fund. The Ohio bill was passed by the State House and Senate and was awaiting a

6

decision by the Governor at the time of this publication. The Arizona bill failed to pass in the State

House of Representatives.

From an operational standpoint, it is also important to identify and prevent loopholes or other methods

for drivers to circumvent ASE. For instance, procedures should be in place to follow up with alleged

violators who do not respond to notices of violation (see Chapter 6: Options for violation notice recipi-

ent, Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice, and Violation notices issued to gov-

ernment and business vehicles for further guidance on violation notice processing). Drivers may also

attempt to circumvent ASE by using consumer radar detectors, or by altering, concealing, or falsifying

license plates. In the United Kingdom, some in-vehicle global positioning systems (GPS) include a

database of ASE locations. These systems warn drivers when they are approaching a location where

ASE is known to be used.

7

IDENTIFY SPEEDING-RELATED SAFETY PROBLEMS

The first step in planning the operations of an ASE program is to identify the speeding-related

safety problems and attitudes that the ASE program will be designed to address. Measures that re-

flect a speeding problem include speeding-related crashes, excessive speeds, speed variance, and

citizen complaints.

Speeding-related crashes are the most direct indicator of a safety problem at a particular location.

When assessing the crash problem, it is important to distinguish between crashes in which speeding

was the primary factor, a contributing factor, or not a factor. Crashes that involve fatalities or serious

injuries deserve particular attention. It is also important to identify trends and contributing factors in

crash data. For example, the number and severity of speeding-related crashes might be influenced

by weather conditions, time of day, traffic volume, alcohol-impaired driving, aggressive driving, the

presence of enforcement, or other conditions.

Excessive speed is also an indicator of a potential safety problem because there are direct relation-

ships between speed and crash probability (Aarts & van Schagen, 2006) and between speed and level

of injury in a crash (Bowie & Walz, 1994). Like crash history, speeding may be influenced by factors

such as weather conditions, traffic volume, time of day, and the presence of enforcement. Locations

where excessive speeding is prevalent are normally identified through speed surveys, review of the

history of speeding-related crashes, and anecdotal reports from police officers or citizens. Speeding

can also have a negative impact on quality of life and perceived safety. Citizen complaints can help to

identify such locations, though a speed survey should be conducted to confirm the presence of unsafe

speeding before ASE is introduced.

Speed variance is a measure of the consistency of speeds among drivers on a road at a given time.

The link between speed variance and crashes has not been fully resolved; numerous studies have

linked speed variance to crash probability (e.g., Garber & Gadiraju, 1988; Harkey, Robertson, & Davis,

1990) but others have found that speed variance does not increase crash probability (e.g., Davis,

2002; Kockelman & Ma, 2004). It is possible that the inconsistency of results is due to methodological

differences between analyses, or that speed variance might only influence crashes in particular

situations. Davis (2002) suggests that very fast drivers and very slow drivers may be at elevated risk

for crashes, but that speed variance itself does not cause crashes. Considering these findings, speed

variance data may help to understand the nature of the speeding problem, but crash history and

excessive speeding are the primary indicators of a speeding-related safety problem.

With data on crash history and excessive speeds, it is possible to determine where the speeding-

related safety problem is located. Problems may be clustered at specific sites (e.g., a particular

intersection or horizontal curve), general areas or road types (e.g., an arterial corridor or school

zones), or problems might be broadly distributed across areas and road types. ASE site selection

issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 3: Site selection.

DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN

A strategic plan for ASE should provide the link between the ASE program’s overarching objectives

(e.g., to reduce the occurrence of speeding and speeding-related crashes) and the short-term and

long-term benchmarks that indicate the degree of success in achieving objectives (e.g., the amount of

reduction in speeding and crashes at each deployment location). Although program objectives should

be tailored to the specific speeding-related safety problem in the community, there are general objec-

tives that all ASE programs should strive to achieve:

8

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Reduce the frequency and severity of speeding-related crashes.

Reduce the frequency of excessive speeding, with an emphasis on the most extreme speeders.

Maximize safety improvements with the most efficient use of resources.

Maximize public awareness and approval of ASE.

Maximize perceived likelihood that speeders will be caught.

Use ASE as a tool to enhance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and supplement,

rather than replace, traffic stops by officers.

Emphasize deterrence rather than punishment.

Emphasize safety rather than revenue generation.

Maintain program integrity by ensuring that all program employees and partners operate ac-

cording to program rules and regulations.

Maintain program transparency by educating the public about program operations and be pre-

pared to explain and justify decisions that affect program operations.

Additional objectives might be more specific to the needs or restrictions of the jurisdiction (e.g., “Re-

duce speeding in school zones”). Everyone involved in the ASE program must share these objectives

and work to achieve them for the program to be fully successful. The strategic plan should emphasize

that it is important to avoid rushing to begin enforcement. Some jurisdictions took more than one year

to plan their programs before implementation. It is also important to chart the level of success in

achieving objectives. Information on program evaluation is presented in Chapter 7. Finally, the stra-

tegic plan should consider the long-term direction of the program, including contingencies for future

expansion and improvement. Most successful ASE programs started with a minimal ASE presence

and expanded their programs as the public came to accept the technology and as program partici-

pants gained experience and improved operations.

IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES

There are three categories of countermeasures that can mitigate a speeding-related safety problem:

•

•

•

Engineering countermeasures can be used to improve the roadway infrastructure itself. Coun-

termeasures can include improved signage, pavement markings, and traffic signals; improved

roadway hardware and design features such as guardrails or shoulders and removal of dan-

gerous roadside obstacles to mitigate the effects of road departure crashes; pavement resur-

facing; installations of traffic-calming devices such as speed humps and rumble strips; and

geometric alterations such as roundabouts and roadway realignment. Speed limits must be

appropriate for the road. Engineering evaluations at problem locations can help to identify po-

tential improvements.

Education countermeasures can change public knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to

speeding. The goal of education is to promote a culture of safety-consciousness in which

speeding is understood to be hazardous and socially unacceptable. Appropriate messages

and information outlets are addressed in Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (initial).

Enforcement countermeasures can deter speeding and penalize violators. There are many

methods to conduct enforcement. Detailed guidelines for conducting a comprehensive speed

enforcement program are available in Speed Enforcement Program Guidelines (National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). As discussed in Chapter 1, ASE has advan-

tages and disadvantages relative to non-automated enforcement that should be considered

before beginning an ASE program.

To operate effectively and efficiently, ASE should be deployed as part of a comprehensive plan that

includes engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures tailored to address specific

speeding-related safety problems. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly delineated, and the

purpose of each countermeasure should be explained to achieve buy-in from everyone who is in-

volved in confronting the problems caused by speeding.

9

OBTAIN INTERAGENCY AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT

ASE is an inherently cooperative venture. A committee or advisory panel of stakeholder representa-

tives should be formed during the planning process to guide program development and ensure that

stakeholders can provide input from their unique perspectives. A successful ASE program requires

the input and support of many stakeholders:

•

•

•

•

Law enforcement officials and officers are at the center of ASE operations in most jurisdic-

tions. Police resources are limited and there are competing demands for officers’ time. Dedi-

cated leadership, staff, and resources can help to ensure that ASE is fully staffed and oper-

ated consistently. Leadership must view ASE as a priority to achieve staff level buy-in. Law

enforcement officers might be skeptical that ASE is as effective as traditional traffic enforce-

ment and that ASE will supplement, rather than replace, traffic stops by officers. It is impor-

tant to emphasize the benefits of ASE to officers. Emphasis should be directed at proven

benefits of ASE, such as increased officer safety, crash reduction, increased traffic flow, and

decreased traffic congestion. Support should also be sought from police associations such as

the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and State

associations of both chiefs and sheriffs.

Traffic engineers and department of transportation officials are responsible for posting speed

limits to maximize efficient traffic flow and alleviate congestion. Input from traffic engineers can

help ensure that speed limits at proposed sites are appropriate and comply with the Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is a national standard for all roads. Engineers are also

often responsible for the collection and dissemination of data and statistics relevant to traffic

safety, as well as the planning and implementation of safety countermeasures. Input from

traffic engineers can guide ASE program goals and prioritization of enforcement sites. Traffic

engineering data can also be used for program evaluation.

The legal community must accept that the ASE program is legal, fair, and defensible in court.

Stakeholders in the legal community include judges, civilian adjudicators (in jurisdictions

where civilians preside over ASE hearings), and prosecuting attorneys. The most important

consideration is assurance that sufficient evidence is recorded and presented to prove guilt.

This means the legal community must accept that the ASE technology and evidence handling

procedures are accurate, unbiased, and safeguarded against errors and tampering. The evi-

dence must meet the standard required to uphold a speeding conviction. To that end, verifica-

tion of ASE equipment accuracy through equipment testing should be conducted before each

enforcement session; or if a fixed site, at appropriate and regularly established intervals.

Proper configurations, focus, computer equipment, flash, and image capture processes should

be checked according to established standards, local law, and manufacturers’ specifications.

Furthermore, the evidence presented in a hearing must be sufficient to show that the defen-

dant is guilty of the violation. Judges must be familiar with ASE technology and informed

about its accuracy and safeguards against errors and improper use. Court personnel and

administrators must also commit to any increased caseload expected to be caused by ASE

and the additional staff and space that this increase may require.

Elected officials at the State and local levels have the power to enact legislation or regulations

that affect ASE. In some cases, new legislation may be required to enable ASE. In other

cases, elected officials may pass legislation that forbids or severely curtails the use of ASE. In

most jurisdictions where ASE has been used, elected officials have had differences of opinion

regarding ASE. The result is usually a compromise that allows ASE, but with certain restric-

tions and requirements.

Motor vehicle department personnel are usually responsible for matching violation data with

motor vehicle records and providing registration information to violation processors. Vendors

may often perform this operation with the cooperation of the motor vehicle agency. ASE may

impose a significant additional workload on the motor vehicle department. Program managers

must work with the motor vehicle department to determine the payment structure for services,

information flow, processing time, and other requirements.

Communications or media relations personnel are often responsible for working with

program managers to develop and disseminate marketing and media material to the public

and the media.

Members of the public might not have a direct role in an ASE program, but a successful ASE

program must have the support of the community. Community residents do recognize the

safety benefits of ASE and the majority of people support it (Freedman, Williams, & Lund,

1990; Royal, 2003). Although local residents are of primary importance, non-residents who

visit or drive through the jurisdiction may also have influence. Dialogue with the community

should begin during the planning stages of ASE, even before the beginning of an official public

information and education campaign. People should be informed of decisions regarding the

program and key aspects of operations and adjudication. They should have outlets to voice

their opinions and suggestions. The public can also help to identify locations where ASE

should be used. Communication with residents should always emphasize the proven benefits

of ASE, including increased officer safety, crash reduction, increased traffic flow, decreased

traffic congestion, and that safety is the sole motivation for the use of ASE. Representatives

of citizen advocacy groups might act as intermediaries for their constituencies and have some

role in program planning (see Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (initial) for more in-

formation on interactions with the public).

10

•

•

•

Depending upon the structure of the ASE program, there may be other people or organizations in-

volved in ASE planning and operations, such as experts in technology, information systems, finance,

and contracting. A vendor representative may be involved after a vendor is selected. A representative

from the department of public works or public safety may participate as well. Although stakeholders

may have their own unique concerns about ASE, it is essential that all details of program operations

are effectively communicated as early as possible to earn their trust and support. Program managers

should work with all stakeholders to ensure they understand how ASE works, what safeguards are in

place to ensure proper operation, and to convince them the program is designed in the interest of pub-

lic safety. In-person demonstrations of the technology can help to demystify ASE and convince stake-

holders it is reliable. A stakeholder committee can also provide valuable guidance for an ASE pro-

gram beyond the planning and startup stages. Periodic meetings should be held throughout the dura-

tion of the program.

SEEK EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FROM MANAGERS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

No matter how well it is planned and managed, running an ASE program is a learning experience. All

successful programs have adapted to changing situations and all successful managers have modified

elements of their programs that needed improvement. A major purpose of these guidelines is to com-

pile the wisdom and experience of successful program managers. Direct contact, however, with these

managers can shed additional light on important topics and can assist in staying abreast of current

events and trends relevant to ASE. A list of experienced ASE program offices is provided in Appendix

F. Many informative research reports and articles are listed in the References section of these guide-

lines and in Appendix A.

DETERMINE NATURE OF VIOLATION AND PENALTY

Depending on State and local law, ASE violations can either be considered “point” offenses that are

punishable by fines and license sanctions or non-point offenses that are only punishable by fines. In

some jurisdictions, the nature of the violation and penalty might be determined by preexisting law or as

a condition in enabling legislation. If possible, policies should be consistent among neighboring juris-

dictions that use ASE to avoid public confusion. Many factors influence the choice of violation and

penalty, and each option has its own implications, advantages, and disadvantages.

The nature of the violation and penalty can have a substantial influence on the requirements of field

operations, violation notice processing, and adjudication. If violations are considered point offenses,

the driver of the vehicle must be identified in the ASE violation photo. This normally requires multiple

cameras and additional office labor, and increases the burden of proof upon the jurisdiction to prove

that an alleged violator is guilty. A vehicle owner charged with a violation may rebut the charge by

stating that he or she was not the driver at the time of the violation. If violations are considered non-

point offenses, driver identification is typically not required, and the penalty for a violation is a fine is-

sued to the vehicle’s registered owner. The adjudication process for non-point offenses is typically

equivalent to the process used for non-moving violations such as parking tickets. ASE programs that

require driver identification do not necessarily have to issue both fines and license sanctions. In juris-

dictions in Colorado that use ASE, drivers are identified, but the only penalty for a violation is a fine.

Driver identification allows ASE to function more like traditional enforcement methods. Driver identifi-

cation ensures that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation is held liable for the violation.

Driver identification is necessary to impose license demerits or points. A combination of fines and li-

cense sanctions is consistent with traditional enforcement penalties and the U.S. DOT Speed Man-

agement Strategic Initiative (U.S. DOT, 2005) recommends this combination as the most effective way

to deter speeding. The National Committee of Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances also recom-

mends this approach in its Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Model Law (NCUTLO, 2001). The

imposition of sanctions enables identification of drivers who have previous sanctions on their licenses

and face restrictions or loss of license if they receive further sanctions.

Identifying the driver is consistent with laws regulating traditional speed enforcement. This type of pro-

gram may require less substantial changes to traffic laws in allowing the use of ASE. Programs that

use driver identification may also have a stronger legal basis in the case of legal challenges. For in-

stance, Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota found that the Minneapolis red light camera pro-

gram, which held registered vehicle owners responsible for violations, did not presume the defendant’s

innocence, in violation of the due process requirements of State law (State of Minnesota and City of

Minneapolis v. Kuhlman, 2006). Although the automated enforcement program was permitted by a

city ordinance, the court found that State law, which superseded the city ordinance, required a higher

standard of due process than the automated enforcement program provided. Minneapolis’s red light

camera program was suspended immediately following this ruling. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in

a decision rendered April 5, 2007, upheld the district court and court of appeals decisions finding that

the procedures used in the automated enforcement program violated State law.

Another advantage of driver identification and license sanctions is perceived credibility. Driver identifi-

cation may be viewed as fairer and more safety-oriented than vehicle identification. Driver identifica-

tion ensures that the actual driver of the vehicle is held responsible. License sanctions emphasize that

penalties are meant to deter speeding rather than raise revenue.

Although driver identification has many advantages, there are some limitations. First, it might be diffi-

cult to issue a citation to someone driving a vehicle not registered in that driver’s name. Some jurisdic-

tions that require driver identification cannot require registered vehicle owners to identify the driver at

the time of the violation, if the driver was someone other than the registered owner (see Chapter 5:

Matching violation information to driver and vehicle records). This can establish a system of unequal

treatment where some drivers are essentially impervious to ASE. Although it might not be feasible

to pursue all violators, there are procedures that can help to minimize the number of dismissed viola-

tions (see Chapter 5: Violation notice processing and delivery and Chapter 6: Violation notice receipt

and adjudication).

Although traditional speed enforcement traffic stops may result in a higher rate of citation issuance per

violation detected, ASE can record multiple violations in a short period of time. The high rate of ASE

detection is likely to increase drivers’ perceived risk of being caught, and therefore increase the deter-

rence of speeding behavior.

Driver identification is also likely to raise concerns about individual privacy. Although some people

believe that photographing the driver’s face is an invasion of privacy, the general opinion of the courts

has been that driving is a regulated activity in a public space, and therefore photographing drivers is

11

not an invasion of privacy (Kendall, 2004). Still, negative perceptions are likely to persist so it is impor-

tant to confront misperceptions early and explain the benefits of driver identification.

12

IDENTIFY ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT ALTERNATIVES

System components

All ASE systems have three basic components: a speed measuring component, a data processing and

storage component, and an image capture component. Each of these components is discussed below

(see Chapter 4: Field operations for further discussion of these components and their setup and op-

eration in the field).

Speed-Measuring

Speed-measuring requires the ability to detect and discriminate individual vehicles on a roadway and

measure their speeds in real time. This can be achieved using above-ground equipment aimed at traf-

fic (e.g., radar or lidar) or in-ground sensors (e.g., piezo/loop detection). Speed-measuring using

above-ground equipment requires a view of the target vehicle with limited obstructions such as road-

side vegetation or other vehicles in the line of sight. In-ground sensors overcome many of the chal-

lenges of line of sight, but are immobile and likely require road closures for installation and mainte-

nance. The accuracy of speed-measuring devices is crucial. Most speed-measuring devices are

equally accurate measuring approaching or receding traffic speeds and are accurate to within 1 mph

when used properly. Target vehicle discrimination is especially important on roads with high volumes

and multiple lanes of traffic. Emerging technologies are expanding the versatility of speed-measuring

devices and target vehicle discrimination. For instance, scanning lidar, which has been used in Akron,

Ohio, allows lidar to be used on multiple lanes and two directions of travel simultaneously. Device

stability with lidar speed-measuring devices is important to ensure accurate measurement, so care

must be taken to prevent above-ground measurement equipment from movement due to wind and

other factors. NHTSA provides performance specifications for across-the-road radar (2004a), down-

the-road radar (2004b), and lidar (2004c). A performance specification for ASE equipment is expected

to be released in 2008 (NHTSA, in press). The IACP maintains a “conforming products list” on its Web

site (www.iacp.org). The use of conforming products, however, is not sufficient to ensure accuracy.

Speed measurement devices must be calibrated and tested before their first use and then retested on

a regular basis, preferably by an independent laboratory.

Data processing and storage

The data processing and storage component is a computer that receives data from the speed-

measuring unit and compares the speed data against the threshold that was set to define violations in

real time. If a vehicle’s speed exceeds the threshold, the unit identifies the vehicle as a violator and

triggers the camera to photograph the vehicle. Additional information such as time, date, and opera-

tor-entered information is also recorded with the speed data. Information about non-speeding vehicles

may also be recorded for broader data collection purposes (e.g., to compare a violator’s speed to

the average or 85th percentile speed of traffic at the location). The information recorded by the ASE

unit must be compatible with “back end” functions for violation processing and adjudication (see

Chapter 5).

Image capture

The image capture component includes one or more cameras that photograph the speed violation in

progress when they are triggered by the computer. The photographs must include a legible image of

the license plate and, if driver identification is required, a clear image of the driver’s face. A fast shut-

ter speed and high image resolution are essential features.

ASE cameras can use either “wet” film or digital imaging. Both types of cameras are currently used in

ASE programs in the U.S. Digital photographs are easy to transfer and reproduce electronically,

which can save time and effort during violation processing. However, extra care is necessary to en-

sure the integrity of photographic evidence. Electronic encryption can prevent unauthorized individu-

als from tampering with or accessing photographs (see Chapter 3: Information management: Com-

patibility, flow, and security for more information on data security).

A flash might be necessary to capture images in low-light conditions. Although some people have ex-

pressed concerns about the effects of flashes on drivers, no evidence shows that frontal flashes at

normal levels have caused crashes or unsafe behavior. Still, as an alternative, some ASE programs

outside the United States use red-filtered flashes or infrared flashes that can flash with little or no visi-

ble light emission (Roberts & Brown-Esplain, 2005). Although these alternative flashes minimize the

potential for driver distraction, image quality and effective range tend to suffer. The intensity of a flash

diminishes over distance and therefore may not be as effective at long range, but some jurisdictions

have used white-light flashes across four or more lanes of traffic (Roberts & Brown-Esplain, 2005).

In recent years, some jurisdictions have begun to supplement photographic evidence with a video re-

cord of speeding violations. Video resolution and frame rate are not currently at a level where video

could replace photographs for driver and vehicle identification.

ASE system platforms

Mobile ASE systems

Mobile ASE systems can be transported to conduct ASE in any geometrically feasible location. Most

mobile ASE units are based in vans or other vehicles that contain a full suite of system components.

Figure 1 shows this type of unit operating in Portland, Oregon. This setup allows operators to easily

transport all equipment and provides a safe and comfortable environment for the operator. An alterna-

tive is to use ground-based mobile ASE equipment that is transported in a vehicle, but removed and

set up on the roadside to operate. Ground-based systems might be more feasible at locations where

there is not enough room to safely park a vehicle or where both front and rear photographs of offend-

ing vehicles are required. An operator is typically present to monitor a mobile ASE unit while it oper-

ates and often keeps a log of information about the session and recorded violations (see Chapter 4:

Event documentation). When deployed according to a systematic enforcement plan, mobile ASE can

provide the broadest deterrent effect because it can be moved between many locations. The number

of mobile units needed to achieve an optimal deterrent effect depends upon the size of the jurisdiction;

the number of enforceable sites (see Chapter 3: Site selection); the presence of other engineering,

education, and enforcement countermeasures (see Chapter 2: Identify countermeasures and Chapter

3: Marketing and media activities (initial); and other elements of the enforcement plan).

13

14

Figure 1. Mobile ASE units in Portland, OR (top), Scottsdale, AZ (center),

and San Jose, CA (bottom)

Fixed ASE systems

Fixed ASE systems are installed at locations where they can operate for up to 24 hours per day with-

out an operator present. Fixed units are typically pole-mounted on the roadside and can use either

above-ground or in-ground speed-measuring equipment. Some fixed units are installed at intersec-

tions to conduct both ASE and red light camera enforcement simultaneously. Figure 2 shows a pole-

mounted ASE system at a mid-block location in Washington, DC. A fixed ASE system can provide a

very substantial deterrent effect, but the effect is generally restricted to a limited area upstream and

downstream of the unit. Fixed units should only be installed at locations where dangerous speeding

and speeding-related crashes are especially frequent, and locations where it is unsafe or infeasible to

use a mobile unit. (See Chapter 3 Program Startup, Site Selection). Fixed ASE may not be legal in

jurisdictions where a human operator is required to be present with the ASE equipment.

15

Figure 2. Pole-mounted ASE system in Washington, DC

Public reaction to fixed ASE may be more negative than reaction to mobile ASE. First, fixed units are

often derided as “speed traps” or “revenue machines” installed in locations where speed limits are per-

ceived to be unreasonably low. In this case it is important to explain the site selection process and

support site selection with safety statistics. Field operations oversight by a human operator during

enforcement can lead to charges that alleged violators are unable to “face their accuser” at a hearing.

Courts typically have not found this charge to be valid, given that a reliable process produced the pho-

tographic evidence. However, not all courts accept this so-called “silent witness” theory of photo-

graphic evidence (Alcee et al., 1992). To confirm the accuracy of fixed ASE speed measurements,

law enforcement agencies often place hash marks on the pavement within the camera’s field of view

and take two pictures of each violation, separated by a set amount of time (see Figure 2). The vehi-

cle’s approximate speed can be determined by measuring the distance it traveled in the time between

the two photos.

16

Summary

It is possible to use a combination of different types of ASE units, but to achieve the broadest possible

effect of ASE; mobile units should be the cornerstones of an ASE program under most circumstances.

Combination units that conduct both ASE and red light enforcement can be used at intersections, but

the effectiveness of these units has not yet been evaluated in a controlled study. Although each type

of ASE system has the potential to reduce speeds and improve safety, the actual effectiveness of

these systems is dependent upon how they are used. Chapter 4: Enforcement Plan describes strate-

gies to maximize the effectiveness of ASE.

IDENTIFY REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES NEEDED FOR ASE PROGRAM

The final step in the ASE planning phase is to identify the functional requirements, equipment re-

quirements, and personnel requirements for the ASE program, as well as additional resources that will

be needed to support the enforcement effort. A list of requirements should be developed as a precur-

sor to program start-up and developing a request for proposal to solicit responses from potential ven-

dors. Requirements should be defined in as much detail as possible, with prioritization according to

level of need. Although some requirements might remain unknown until the final arrangements are

made with the vendor, it is important to begin to identify requirements early to be able to effectively

communicate needs to potential system vendors.

17

CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM STARTUP

Startup of an ASE program should only commence if the program has a strong legal basis and stake-

holder support, and careful planning has been conducted to develop a strategic plan with identification

of program requirements (see Chapter 2). Startup of an ASE system involves:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

site selection;

system procurement;

resource and personnel management;

revenue management;

planning for program evaluation;

marketing and media relations; and

program rollout.

SITE SELECTION

Selection factors

Site selection should be the first step in system startup and should be done collaboratively with the

traffic engineering or transportation department. It should be done before system procurement to en-

sure that the vendors are not involved to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest.

Appropriate site selection is essential to achieve the highest level of safety benefits and to ensure the

public that safety is the top priority of the program. The highest priority enforcement sites should be

located where there is the greatest risk for speeding-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Candidate

sites may have been identified during the problem identification phase (see Chapter 2: Identify speed-

ing-related safety problems). Crash risk can be determined from reliable data on crash history, crash

patterns (e.g., seasonal or time of day) and other factors such as the percentage of vehicles that are

speeding, traffic volume, and influence of other countermeasures and roadway alterations. It is gen-

erally unwise to select sites where speeding is common and crashes are rare because the public is

likely to perceive these locations as “speed traps.” However, exceptions may be made in locations with

many pedestrians and in neighborhoods where speeding adversely affects quality of life. The equip-

ment vendor should not have any role in site selection, but may advise on the technical feasibility of

conducting ASE at particular sites.

Citizen complaints can also help to identify locations with speeding-related safety problems. Respon-

siveness to citizen complaints is important because citizens may be the first to notice a developing

safety problem and because the ASE program is ultimately for the benefit of the public. Site evalua-

tions and speed surveys should be conducted to determine whether sites identified by citizens warrant

speed enforcement.

Research shows that speed reductions attributed to ASE are most substantial at the location of an

active ASE unit and deteriorate as distance from the unit increases (Champness, Sheehan, & Folk-

man, 2005; Hess, 2004; Keenan, 2004; Winnett, 2003). Although the length of this distance halo ef-

fect varies in different studies, meaningful speed reductions tend to be limited to a range of less than

one mile downstream and shorter distances upstream. In a review of studies that measured halo ef-

fects, Elliott and Broughton (2004) concluded that halo effects for ASE are typically smaller than halo

effects for enforcement conducted by police officers in marked patrol cars, though the authors do not

distinguish between different methods of ASE.

A site should be defined either as one specific location or as a corridor with multiple enforceable loca-

tions. In general, defining a site as a corridor can be expected to result in a more widespread deter-

rent effect because enforcement locations are less predictable. If the speeding-related safety problem

extends for more than one mile, the presence of numerous enforceable sites on the problematic corri-

dor can have the greatest overall deterrent effect. If the problem is limited to a stretch of roadway less

than one mile long and if the safety problem is due to a roadway feature that cannot be readily re-

solved through engineering measures, enforcing just one specific location might be sufficient to curtail

speeding in the area. Chapter 4: Enforcement Plan further discusses ways to maximize the deterrent

effect of ASE.

Distribution of enforcement sites throughout the jurisdiction can increase the overall deterrent effect of

the ASE program by increasing the perceived likelihood that drivers can be caught speeding any-

where. Sites clustered in particular neighborhoods can provoke charges of biased operations or tar-

geting of particular groups. Site selection should also avoid the perception of prejudice toward particu-

lar groups, such as out-of-town commuters.

Road types

Distribution of enforcement between various road types can help to maximize safety benefits through-

out the jurisdiction, but there are important factors to consider for each road type:

School zones

School zones are frequently selected as locations for ASE. In a national survey, Royal (2003) found

that 78 percent of participants believed that it is appropriate to use ASE in school zones. This high

level of support makes school zone enforcement a good way to introduce ASE in a jurisdiction. When

conducting ASE in school zones, it is important to clearly display the school zone speed limit and the

hours during which it applies. Focused enforcement when classes resume after summer and winter

breaks combined with a child safety campaign may be an effective way to modify driver behavior in

school zones. Because school zones encompass a small percentage of a jurisdiction’s roadways, it is

easy to sustain a reasonably high level of enforcement with a small number of ASE units.

Residential neighborhoods

Residential neighborhoods typically have low traffic volumes and low speed limits. ASE should only

be conducted at locations where speeding creates a safety problem or has a negative impact on qual-

ity of life, but within this constraint, public demand for speed management can influence site selection.

It is important to have support from the residents of neighborhoods where ASE is used. For example,

San Jose, California, established an effective model for conducting enforcement in residential areas;

where ASE is only conducted in neighborhoods if a majority of residents or a neighborhood associa-

tion requests it. After ASE is requested by a neighborhood, a speed study is conducted to confirm that

the speeding problem warrants enforcement. This model has generated strong public support for the

ASE program.

Major roads

Major roads or arterials are often among the most dangerous roads in a jurisdiction, with high traffic

volumes, high traffic speeds, and complex roadway geometries and traffic patterns. Nationally, major

roads account for many more speeding-related fatalities than any other roadway functional class (Liu,

Chen, Subramanian, & Utter, 2005). ASE can have a significant impact on major roads, but factors

such as multiple lanes of traffic and close proximity of vehicles can make it more difficult for ASE to

single out speeding vehicles.

Highway work zones

Highway work zones often feature complex and transitory traffic patterns that increase the level of risk

for motorists and work crews. Voluntary compliance with reduced work zone speed limits is often low.

ASE may be especially helpful in work zones because it can be used in places where traditional en-

forcement methods are infeasible or hazardous. Precise documentation of site features, such as loca-

tion, number of lanes, presence of work crews, and speed limit are essential because of the transitory

nature of work zones. Law enforcement presence in work zones has long been recognized as one of

the most effective speed reduction methods available to transportation officials (Fontaine, Schrock &

Ullman, 2002).

18

Limited-access highways

Limited-access highways provide the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest un-

interrupted distance, with some degree of access control. Nationally, the fewest number of speeding-

related crashes occur on this class of road. Special care must be taken before implementing ASE on

these roadways. As an example, an ASE freeway program in Scottsdale, Arizona, led to a mean

speed decrease of more than 9 mph, a 50-percent reduction in crashes, and a 40-percent reduction

in crash-related injuries (Washington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). Limited access highways also

often carry a substantial number of out-of-town motorists who are less likely to be aware of the use of

ASE, and therefore harder to deter. Substantial signage might be necessary to warn all drivers on

limited-access highways of the presence of ASE. A feasibility study by the Arizona Department of

Transportation identified many of the implementation issues related to freeway ASE (Roberts &

Brown-Esplain, 2005).

Evaluation of candidate sites

A speed survey should be conducted at each candidate site to assess speeds and the potential

of various countermeasures to mitigate excessive speeds. If possible, the survey should be con-

ducted by engineers or an independent agency. Data should be analyzed to determine the factors

associated with the safety problem, and enforcement should be adapted according to these factors.

For example, if speeding-related crashes occur primarily during evening rush hour, then enforcement

can be focused on that particular time of day. If countermeasures other than ASE are deemed more

appropriate and feasible, they should be implemented and the site should be reevaluated before im-

plementing ASE.

It is also important to consider whether the geometry of the roadway supports the feasibility of ASE at

each candidate site. There must be enough space on the roadside to place the ASE equipment with-

out creating a safety hazard for equipment operators or motorists. Power must be available to ASE

units that are not self-powered. The lines-of-sight for speed-measuring equipment and cameras must

be uninterrupted. Distances and angles between the ASE unit and observed vehicles must be appro-

priate to ensure accurate speed measurement and clear photographs. Ideally, traffic engineers should

evaluate each potential site to ensure that ASE will not have any adverse effects on safety. In some

cases, fixed ASE units might be able to operate in locations where use of mobile units is infeasible.

ASE equipment should be tested at each potential site to ensure that data is not compromised by

electromagnetic interference, background motion, or other factors. See Chapter 4: Field operations

for more information on ASE location and setup.

At a minimum, traffic authorities should confirm that the posted speed limit is appropriate and complies

with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and State or local guidelines. This includes the

size, location, and spacing of speed limit signs and “reduced speed ahead” signs. The review should

ensure that the speed limit signs are clearly visible and not obscured by vegetation. The review

should ensure that the speed limit is set legally. Speed limits are usually legally implemented by

means of an ordinance or resolution. Speed limits that differ from the statutory limits usually require

an engineering study.

19

SYSTEM PROCUREMENT

Once all the requirements for the ASE program have been identified, the next step is to procure the

equipment required for the program. Jurisdictions have various procurement options ranging from

purchasing ASE equipment to contracting for ASE equipment and related services. System procure-

ment requires the input of experts in technology, finance, and legal issues. Procurement and contract-

ing experts in particular should be involved in this process. A committee of ASE stakeholders should

also be involved to ensure that the ASE system and contract are acceptable to all stakeholders (see

Chapter 2: Obtain interagency and community support). The system procurement process should not

begin unless the legal authority of ASE is assured. Vendors are likely to be wary of providing ASE to a

jurisdiction where the legal authority of ASE is uncertain.

20

COORDINATION WITH COURTS

The support of the judiciary and other court personnel is essential to the success and continued op-

eration of an ASE program. Without judicial support, courts may refuse to uphold the validity of ASE

citations or even rule that the ASE program itself is not valid. Depending upon legal requirements,

ASE cases may be heard by a judge or a civilian adjudicator such as a magistrate or a hearing officer.

Civilian adjudicators can rule on ASE cases if the infraction is considered civil, but cannot rule on

criminal cases or issues of constitutionality.

ASE involves processes and technologies that are probably unfamiliar to many adjudicators, so it is

important to provide adequate information to adjudicators, district attorneys, and other prosecutorial

staff on how the ASE technology works and the safeguards that are in place to ensure proper opera-

tion. Adjudicators should be encouraged to develop a common consensus for ruling on ASE violations

to avoid inconsistent rulings. Provide adjudicators with an informative demonstration and evidence of

system reliability, but not to ask adjudicators what evidence should be presented at hearings to secure

a verdict of guilt.

Support for ASE is also required from court administrators and personnel. ASE is likely to increase

the courts’ case management workload and may require additional staff or work space to meet this

demand. Workload demands may be variable and unpredictable, particularly in the first months of

ASE operation. Customer service workload may be mitigated by an effective marketing and media

campaign, and by providing additional information, such as a list of common questions and answers,

to citation recipients (see Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice). Work-

load analyses during the early months of the ASE program may help to reevaluate staffing needs and

identify potential improvements to efficiency. A report by the Scottsdale City Court administrator on

the court’s experience with an ASE demonstration project provides valuable insight and advice for

adapting courts to handle increased workload and new challenges posed by ASE (Cornell, in press).

Program managers should coordinate closely with court administrators. A shared vision and mutual

understanding of the other’s roles, responsibilities, and procedures are critical to program success.

Summary statistics provided by the court can provide valuable information on program outcomes and

can identify inefficiencies, errors, and aspects of the program that can be improved. Program manag-

ers should keep track of the dispositions of ASE cases and review cases in which defendants were

found not guilty to determine the reasons for the dispositions. Rulings of “not guilty” may reveal flaws

in program operations, insufficiency of evidence presented at the hearing, or the considerations under-

lying adjudicators’ reasoning, among other potential reasons.

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: COMPATIBILITY, FLOW, AND SECURITY

System compatibility is essential to ensure that violation data, motor vehicle records, photographs,

court records, and other information can be accessed by all authorized individuals. Compatibility can

be a challenge because data may exist in a variety of forms within multiple databases that were not

designed to be compatible. Incompatible systems may increase the workload and time required to

process violations, and may increase the potential for processing errors to occur. Furthermore, ven-

dor-provided processing systems may be designed for efficient violation processing, but they may not

be fully compatible with existing systems within the jurisdiction. Proprietary vendor systems may also

limit the jurisdiction’s ability to select a different vendor. For example, violation records produced by a

vendor’s ASE units may be uniquely compatible with that vendor’s violation processing system. The

vendor contract should require a minimum level of compatibility to ensure that the jurisdiction has

ownership of ASE records and that the vendor’s systems do not inhibit the jurisdiction from selecting

another alternative for ASE services in the future (see Chapter 3: Contracting issues). ASE records

should also be maintained in a format that allows statistics and summary data to be generated for pro-

gram analysis (see Chapter 7).

ASE requires efficient data flow between various systems, locations, and people. At a minimum, ASE

data must flow from the enforcement unit to violation processing, violation validation, vehicle registra-

tion confirmation, and delivery to recipient. Violation status tracking, record-keeping and statistical

summaries, court procedures, and other factors are likely to add further data flow requirements (see

Chapter 5). Many tasks and data transfers can be conducted more efficiently in electronic format

rather than using paper forms. Where possible, processes may be automated to reduce staff work-

load, processing time, and potential for errors. Program managers should observe data flow proce-

dures to identify inefficiencies or sources of error that can be remedied.

Information security is essential for an ASE program and should be emphasized to everyone with ac-

cess to violation data and information that identifies individuals. All individuals with access to sensitive

information should receive specific training on information security and confidentiality. ASE violation

evidence must be managed according to standard rules for the security and preservation of legal evi-

dence. Computer and network security experts should be involved in the implementation of security

procedures and technologies. Violation data and photographs should be electronically encrypted at

the time of their capture to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Access to violation material

should be restricted to individuals who require access, and should require secure passwords. Elec-

tronic signatures may be used to keep track of who has accessed particular records. Electronic data

transfer should only be conducted over direct connections and secure networks and controls should

be put in place to prevent information from being transferred to insecure locations.

Sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers should not be used or linked with

names unless it is necessary, and should never be printed on violation notices mailed to recipients.

Once a violation notice has been settled and is no longer outstanding, the record should be processed

according to jurisdiction policies. If data is retained for statistical or analysis purposes, personal identi-

fying information should be removed from records.

21

PROGRAM EVALUATION PLAN

Program evaluation activities should begin long before ASE is implemented. It is important to get

baseline speed and crash data that represent the time before driver behavior was influenced by

ASE. It is helpful to collect data before the marketing and media campaign begins because the cam-

paign can influence driver behavior. Chapter 7 provides a detailed discussion of issues relevant to

program evaluation.

COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA ACTIVITIES (INITIAL)

It is important to use a strong communications campaign including marketing and media to explain the

philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program. ASE should be described as a tool that can en-

hance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and that ASE will supplement rather than replace traf-

fic stops by officers. The public should also be made aware that ASE is used to improve safety, not to

generate revenue or impose “big brother” surveillance. Saying this will not necessarily make it so in

the eyes of the public, so it is important to explain how each element of the ASE program puts safety

first and how controls are in place to prevent misuse of the system.

A comprehensive communications campaign is essential to maintain positive public relations and to

ensure that the public understands how ASE works and why it will improve safety as a supplement to

traditional enforcement. The campaign should begin several months to a year in advance of ASE im-

plementation. The two most important goals of the communications plan are to maximize public

awareness and acceptance of the ASE program. Data should be evaluated to identify at-risk drivers in

the community. Special attention should focus on males and young drivers. Studies conducted in the

United States and abroad have consistently found that support for ASE is weakest among young driv-

ers and males (e.g., Behavior Research Center, Inc., 2007; Blincoe, Jones, Sauerzapf, & Haynes,

2006; Corbett & Simon, 1999; Retting, 2003), so these groups may warrant particular attention.

Promote awareness of ASE program

To achieve speeding deterrence, the public must be aware of the ASE program and how it works. The

public should be educated about the speeding problem and how it affects their community. Current

efforts in traditional enforcement should be highlighted, including an explanation of how ASE will sup-

plement the effort to make the community safer, decrease traffic congestion, and improve quality of

life. An explanation of how the technology functions, successes in other communities, and how it is

implemented should be included. The number of enforcement units in use, whether they are mobile or

fixed, the types of sites that are enforceable, and the total number of enforceable sites should be ex-

plained. It is also possible to make public the specific locations of sites, though it would be unwise to

reveal the schedule in advance of their deployment. Identifying all potential locations may have a

positive effect on deterrence at problem locations if drivers know where enforcement is frequently lo-

cated. Revealing enforcement locations also contributes to the goal of program transparency and

might appease some critics of the program, though public awareness of enforceable sites may reduce

the general deterrent effect of ASE.

It is also important to inform the public about the procedures for violation processing, payment, and

adjudication. It is not necessary to reveal exactly what speed threshold is used to define a violation,

but drivers should be made aware that the program targets dangerous speeding and they will not be

ticketed by ASE for traveling 2 or 3 mph above the limit. It is not appropriate to tell drivers that the

threshold is in place to allow for inaccuracy of measurement, because a threshold of 6 or 11 mph

above the speed limit is substantially greater than the small potential inaccuracy of speed measure-

ment equipment. The public should be made aware of the penalties for ASE violations and their rights

and options if they receive a violation notice.

Promote acceptance of ASE program

If the purpose of promoting awareness is to explain what the ASE program is, then the purpose of

promoting acceptance is to explain why the program is worthwhile. To promote acceptance of the

ASE program, it is important to educate the public about the general dangers of speeding and the

specific speeding-related safety problem overall and at specific locations in the jurisdiction. Despite

known links between speeding, crash likelihood, and crash severity, many people believe they are

capable of speeding safely. It is also difficult to dissuade people from speeding because speeding

has the benefit of reducing travel time. Even though ASE can deter speeding among those who be-

lieve that speeding is safe and acceptable, a goal of the marketing and media effort should be to

influence people to change their attitudes toward speeding so that speeding is seen as unsafe and

socially unacceptable.

The social marketing effort should also emphasize the safety and congestion mitigation benefits of

ASE. Statistics can be cited from jurisdictions in the United States and abroad that have effective ASE

programs. Although U.S. data may have more relevance to the American public, substantial evalua-

nducted in Europe, Australia, and other places have shown many benefits, including:

In Victoria, Australia, within three months following the introduction of speed-enforcement

cameras in late 1989, the number of offenders triggering photo radar decreased 50 per-

cent and the percentage of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased

from about 20 percent in 1990 to less than 4 percent in 1994 (Cameron, Cavallo, & Gil-

bert, 1992).

A Norwegian study found that injury crashes were reduced by 20 percent on sections of

rural roads with cameras (Elvik, 1997).

In British Columbia, Canada, there was a 7-percent decline in crashes and 20 percent

fewer deaths the first year cameras were used. The proportion of speeding vehicles de-

clined from 66 percent to less than 40 percent, and researchers attributed a 10-percent

decline in daytime injuries to photo radar (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 1998).

In Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, injury crashes in the immediate vicinity of speed-

enforcement camera sites were reduced 46 percent (Hess, 2004).

One of the most ambitious efforts to control traffic speeds on a heavily traveled urban

highway is on the M25, which circles London (Harbord, 1997). Speed-enforcement cam-

eras used in conjunction with a system of variable speed limits that are adjusted based on

weather and traffic conditions resulted in 28 percent fewer injury crashes during the first

year of the program; preliminary data for the second year indicated that the improvements

were sustained.

tions co

22

•

•

•

•

•

Although speed reductions are worth reporting, crash reductions are especially important to convince

the public that ASE improves safety.

It is important to use marketing and media campaigns to explain the philosophy and strategy behind

the ASE program. ASE should be described as a tool that can enhance the capabilities of traffic law

enforcement and that ASE will supplement, rather than replace, traffic stops by officers. The public

should also be made aware that ASE is used to improve safety, not to generate revenue or impose

“big brother” surveillance. Saying this will not necessarily make it so in the eyes of the public, so it is

important to explain how each element of the ASE program puts safety first and how controls are in

place to prevent misuse of the system. Another key point is that ASE is intended to deter speeders,

not punish them. It is important to emphasize that a low rate of violations is desirable because it

means the program is successfully deterring speeders. Table 1 presents a list of common arguments

used by opponents of ASE and the reasons that those arguments are not valid.

Program transparency is critical to gain the support of the public. Program spokespersons must be

able to explain why every decision was made and how it benefits public safety. For instance, it is im-

portant to explain the site selection process and criteria for enforcement, the rationale behind contract

arrangements with the vendor, the reasons that ASE units operate overtly or covertly, the accuracy

and reliability of violation detection equipment, the quality control measures to ensure that recorded

violations are valid, and so forth. If the jurisdiction is perceived as being secretive or disengaged,

people are likely to become distrustful of the program’s intentions and rationales. To help the public

follow the ASE startup process, program managers can distribute the minutes of relevant meetings,

post information on a community Web site, or start a mailing list to send updates to interested individuals.

23

Table 1. Common arguments against ASE and appropriate responses

Argument

Response

ASE is primarily intended to raise

money for the government.

All fines are designed to maximize the deterrent effect of

ASE; the goal is to reduce the number of recorded viola-

tions, not to penalize violators.

ASE is illegal because a machine

issues the ticket and that means

that I am deprived of my right to

face my accuser at a hearing.

The ASE system does not issue tickets; it records evidence,

and a human reviewer must review each ASE citation to

determine whether a violation took place. A human also

serves as the accuser at a hearing.

ASE is illegal because I am pre-

sumed guilty unless I prove my

innocence.

Alleged violators are presumed innocent unless they admit

guilt by accepting the penalties or take their case to a court

hearing and are convicted on the basis of evidence.

ASE causes more accidents than

it prevents

Out of dozens of evaluations in the United States and

abroad, no evaluation has ever found evidence of an in-

crease in crashes attributed to ASE.

Speeding is not unsafe; the

speed limits are set too low.

Scientific evidence shows that speeding increases both the

likelihood and severity of crashes. Speed limits are not sim-

ply set according to the maximum reasonable speed of a

solitary vehicle; they also accommodate the safety of pedes-

trians, turning and merging traffic, etc. Speed limits should

be set according to current engineering policies before ASE

is implemented.

Photographing me and my car is

an invasion of my privacy.

Driving is a regulated activity that takes place in public, so

there is no legal argument for privacy. Furthermore, ASE

only takes photographs when an illegal activity is detected,

and controls are in place to ensure the security of evidence.

Information outlets

For the marketing and media campaign to be effective, it is important to get the message to as many

people as possible. Information outlets can vary in the type of information presented, the type and

size of the audience it will reach, and cost, among other variables. A strategy to disseminate informa-

tion to the public should use a variety of information outlets to effectively reach the broadest possible

range of people at a reasonable cost.

Media coverage

Media coverage is a very effective way to provide information to the public at no cost to the jurisdic-

tion. Media interest in ASE is likely to be high during the months before and after ASE is imple-

mented. Local television, radio, and print media outlets will want to cover the program, so it is impor-

tant to facilitate their efforts. Press releases or video releases can be used to provide important infor-

mation to the media and to announce program milestones or changes. Program managers or other

representatives should be available for interviews, system demonstrations, and enforcement ride-

alongs. Media relations should be centrally coordinated to ensure that the program’s operations and

strategic vision are described accurately and consistently. Responsiveness to media inquiries is criti-

cal. Reporters may want traffic safety statistics, ASE program reports, rationales for particular deci-

sions, and other information, so it is important to make this information available. Slow or unsatisfac-

tory responses to queries might be viewed negatively by the media. During contact with the media it is

important to continually emphasize the safety-oriented philosophy and goals of the program (see

Chapter 2: Develop a strategic plan and Chapter 3: Promote acceptance of ASE program). It is also

important to remember that media coverage and public opinion tend to influence one another. In other

words, positive media coverage can lead to positive public opinion and positive public opinion can lead

to positive media coverage.

Marketing

Many marketing outlets are available to reach broad or narrow segments of the population, and costs

can vary widely. The appropriate choice of media outlets depends upon the needs of the jurisdiction

and the budget available for marketing. Like other elements of the social marketing campaign, mar-

keting materials should be designed to increase awareness and acceptance of the ASE program. The

marketing campaign should focus on factual information about the dangers of speeding and the ways

that ASE can improve community safety, but emotional appeals that focus on the human toll of speed-

ing-related crashes can also help to make the safety problem seem more real and relevant to the public.

The ASE program should be given a name that is memorable and favorably viewed by the public.

Though many current ASE programs do not have names, some names that have been used for ASE

programs (or the broader highway safety programs of which they are part) include Safe Speed (Char-

lotte, NC), NASCOP (Neighborhood Automated Speed Compliance Program, San Jose, CA), No

Need for Speed (Davenport, IA), Focus on Safety (Scottsdale, AZ), and Eye on Safety (Washington,

DC). Marketing material should have a professional appearance. Slogans, logos, and eye-catching

graphics and colors can help to attract attention and improve the public’s memory of the message.

Some jurisdictions have held contests for schoolchildren or the broader community to name the

program or develop a theme for marketing materials. Such contests can promote positive public rela-

tions and generate media attention. The program name, slogans, messages, and graphic themes

should be used consistently to “brand” the ASE program. Potential marketing materials and messages

can be evaluated in focus groups or surveys to ensure that they convey the intended message and

are memorable.

Marketing outlets include television, radio, newspapers and newsletters, signs and billboards, posters,

flyers, video presentations, and giveaway items such as bumper stickers, lapel pins, pens, and similar

incentive items. Television, radio, and print ads can reach a substantial number of people, but can be

relatively expensive. Television and radio ads may be most effective if aired close to traffic reports.

Road signs and billboards can be an excellent way to reach drivers in the jurisdiction, but the amount

of information that can be presented this way is limited. Figure 3 shows an ad placed on the rear of

city buses in Washington, DC. The use of signage is covered in more detail in Chapter 4: Signage.

Flyers and other print materials can be distributed in many ways: they can be mailed to jurisdiction

residents with other items such as utility bills or by themselves; made available at government build-

ings such as department of motor vehicles, court houses, and libraries; distributed to organizations

such as neighborhood associations, driving schools, and motorist associations; or handed out at

community events such as fairs or open houses. Print materials about the ASE program should also

be delivered with violation notices (see Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation

24

“

•

•

•

•

•

25

notice). Video presentations about the ASE program can provide a substantial amount of information

about the ASE program and its value to the community. Videos can be distributed to media outlets,

driving schools, high schools, and other organizations that might be interested in showing it to their

constituents. Videos could also be made available for computer download from a community Web site

or by mail order.

Figure 3. Advertisement on rear of city buses in Washington, DC

Jurisdiction Web site

The jurisdiction’s Web site is an excellent resource that can be used to present information about the

ASE program. Unlike other information outlets, a Web site can be used to present information in great

detail and allows users to navigate the information at their own pace. ASE information should be easy

to find on the Web site by using a search function or by locating it under a logical heading, such as

public safety, police department, transportation safety, or recent news. With the space and multimedia

capabilities afforded by the Internet, it is possible to include information such as the history of the ASE

program, safety statistics, enforcement site locations, photographs, videos, and links to additional in-

formation, press releases, and more. A frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) section can be used to an-

swer common questions that people have about the program and reduce the burden on live customer

service representatives. Other marketing and media material should direct people to the Web site for

more information. Once the ASE program has begun to issue citations, a Web site can also be used

to allow users to view their own violation records and pay citations.

Public input

One of the most important aspects of a social marketing campaign is encouraging public input in the

development of the ASE program. Public opinion is a major factor in the success of an ASE program,

so it is important to be aware of people’s concerns and to address them in its design. There are many

ways to seek public input:

People should be able to deliver their comments and concerns by telephone, e-mail, or mail.

Public events such as an open house can be held to allow the public to interact with program

managers and see the technology in person.

Town hall”-style meetings or appearances at public events such as neighborhood association

meetings or parent teacher association meetings can be used to give program managers a

chance to talk about the program and answer questions from the public.

Guest appearances on call-in television or radio programs can allow program managers to re-

spond to public questions and concerns. Write-in question and answer forums can also be

held on the Internet.

Focus groups can provide a structured method to delve deep into people’s opinions and

knowledge about many issues related to ASE, but this method is labor intensive, should only

be conducted with up to about 10 individuals per session, and is best used to develop market-

ing materials.

Surveys are the best way to assess overall public opinion on a broad scale, but are not par-

ticularly effective in allowing individuals to express the sort of open-ended responses that best

reflect individual concerns. Surveys are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 7: Evaluation

of public awareness and acceptance.

26

•

Continuing public information and education after startup

An effective marketing and media campaign is critical to the success of a new ASE program, but it is

important to maintain these efforts as the program matures. When the ASE program is established

and public awareness and acceptance are at desirable levels, it is possible to scale down marketing

and media efforts. Broad, expensive advertising such as television, radio, and print ads can be

ceased, and communication efforts can be focused on inexpensive methods and specific groups.

Student drivers should be a particular focus of ongoing marketing and media because they are most

likely to be unfamiliar with ASE and they are also at especially high risk for speeding-related crashes.

The department of motor vehicles should also be a focus of marketing and media because it serves

many new drivers and people who are new to the jurisdiction. When there are important changes to

program operations, program milestones are reached, or new findings regarding program effective-

ness, press releases and media contacts should be used to spread the word. A community Web site

is also an excellent place to maintain marketing and media materials and report current events at very

little expense to the jurisdiction.

PROGRAM ROLLOUT AND WARNING PERIOD

Before the ASE program goes into operation, a demonstration should be conducted to ensure that

all system components are functioning properly and all staff are following procedures. Staffing should

be reevaluated to ensure that there are enough employees to handle the workload that the program

will generate.

The program may begin with a warning period, during which the program is in full operation but viola-

tions do not carry fines or license sanctions. An advantage of a warning period is that managers can

evaluate the program and correct problems before penalties are assessed. It also functions as an ad-

ditional notice to motorists that ASE is beginning and individuals who receive warning notices can

modify their behavior before actual ticketing begins. A disadvantage is that a warning period may en-

courage some drivers to speed intentionally because they know there will be no penalties or to get a

warning notice as a “souvenir.” This behavior may be especially likely to occur if ASE is conducted by

fixed units that function without an operator present. To discourage such behavior, violation notices

sent during the warning period should not include photographs and it should be made clear to motor-

ists that reckless behaviors recorded by ASE units will be prosecuted. If used, a warning period

should not exceed one month. A warning period may also be used at sites where the speed limit has

recently decreased or increased. Whether or not a warning period is used, other methods, such as

speed trailers and increased traditional enforcement, may be used prior to full implementation to miti-

gate speeding.

27

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONS

ENFORCEMENT PLAN

The enforcement plan is the set of procedures and policies that determine how enforcement is con-

ducted. The enforcement plan should focus on achieving the goals identified in the program’s strate-

gic plan (see Chapter 2: Develop a strategic plan) with efficient use of resources, public support (see

Chapter 3: Promote acceptance of ASE program), and within the constraints of laws and policies (see

Chapter 2: Ensure legal and policy authority for ASE). It is important to document the reasons for all

decisions that affect the enforcement plan in order to defend the enforcement plan or to reevaluate its

strategy. Relevant enforcement plan considerations include:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Enforcement speed threshold;

Overt versus covert enforcement;

Signage;

Days and hours of operation;

ASE strategy and scheduling;

Immediate feedback to drivers;

Coordination with other traffic law enforcement efforts;

Coordination with adjudication and judiciary communities; and

Ongoing improvements to the enforcement plan.

It is also advisable to develop a set of operational guidelines to ensure proper and consistent opera-

tion of ASE equipment. The Department for Transport in the United Kingdom developed a handbook

of rules and guidance that addresses the philosophy, strategy, and operations of ASE throughout the

United Kingdom (Department for Transport, 2006). Police in Victoria, Australia, developed a policy

manual for mobile ASE that addresses the philosophy of the program, roles of police and contractors,

and guidelines for site selection and operations (Victoria Police Traffic Camera Office, 2006).

Enforcement speed threshold

The enforcement speed threshold is the lowest speed at which a violation will be recorded at a particu-

lar site. The enforcement speed threshold should be the same that is used for traditional speed en-

forcement, and should be at the point of exceeding reasonable and prudent speeds. Many jurisdic-

tions begin enforcement at speeds 11 mph above the speed limit. This threshold is generally consid-

ered appropriate because it ensures that enforcement will only affect those who drive substantially

faster than the speed limit, particularly where the speed limit was not established through a recent en-

gineering study. Higher enforcement thresholds are not appropriate because they can lead to even

greater disregard for the speed limit. Lower enforcement thresholds are more appropriate in areas

with low speed limits, especially where pedestrians and children might be present, such as residential

areas, schools, playgrounds, and park areas, and where the speed limit was set according to proper

engineering procedures. The enforcement speed threshold set in these areas should be no less than

6 mph above the speed limit. For more information on establishing enforcement speed thresholds,

refer to Speed Enforcement Program Guidelines (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008).

Program managers must decide whether to reveal enforcement thresholds to the public. Revealing

enforcement thresholds is likely to yield a positive public reaction and might help to reduce speed vari-

ance at enforced sites. However, it might also be viewed as a tacit endorsement of a limited degree of

speeding. If enforcement thresholds are not revealed, it is important to inform the public that there is

some threshold, and that they will not normally be cited for driving just 2 or 3 mph above the speed limit.

28

Overt versus covert enforcement

Overt enforcement provides some indication to drivers that they are approaching an enforced location.

Indications can include fixed or temporary signage on the approach to the enforcement unit (see

Chapter 4: Signage), pavement markings, or markings on the enforcement unit itself, such as identify-

ing text or logos or conspicuous colors. Enforcement units might also have features such as a speed

display board or conspicuous vehicle modifications, such as a large rear window or external equip-

ment. Covert enforcement is conducted with ASE units that are unmarked and with no specific warn-

ing to drivers that they are approaching an enforced location.

Although the differences between the effects of overt and covert enforcement are not well understood,

there is reason to believe that covert enforcement does have a more substantial positive effect on

driver behavior than overt enforcement (Keall, Povey, & Frith, 2001; 2002). With overt enforcement,

drivers can often see an upcoming ASE unit and slow down before entering the detection zone. With

covert enforcement, drivers are more likely to maintain slower speeds throughout the jurisdiction be-

cause of the possibility of unexpectedly encountering ASE. Therefore, overt enforcement is likely to

result in minimal jurisdiction-wide effects, but a substantial decrease in speeding at actively enforced

sites, whereas covert enforcement is likely to result in larger system-wide effects, but a less substan-

tial decrease in speeding at actively enforced sites. This was the case in New Zealand, where the

percentage of vehicles speeding through active ASE sites increased from 1 percent to 5 percent after

the switch from overt to covert enforcement (Keall et al., 2001). Although no research exists on the

effects of overt versus covert ASE on traffic flow, it is possible that overt enforcement will slow traffic

excessively, which may impede traffic flow on high volume roads. Covert and overt enforcement can

be effectively combined in a speed enforcement program and covert enforcement is especially effec-

tive in improving safety when combined with a substantial marketing and media campaign (Diaman-

topoulou & Cameron, 2002).

Despite the likelihood of greater jurisdiction-wide speeding reductions, covert enforcement is not often

used in the United States or abroad because of negative public reactions, and numerous jurisdictions

have laws that forbid covert operations. Covert ASE may increase people’s concerns that the program

is designed to bring in revenue and penalize speeders rather than deter them. Negative reactions

also likely stem from the fact that it is substantially more difficult for drivers to spot and avoid covert

ASE than overt ASE, and even drivers who generally support the concept of ASE might not support

the program if they believe that drivers who rarely speed will be caught speeding too often.

Both overt and covert ASE result in positive safety effects, so either method is acceptable. In general,

covert ASE should only be used where the public accepts its use or where overt enforcement has not

sufficiently reduced speeding and crashes. One significant advantage of overt ASE is that its visibility

can help to increase awareness of the program and increase the perceived likelihood of drivers en-

countering ASE. In this way, overt ASE can act as a deterrent. In contrast, covert ASE might result in

drivers remaining unaware of the presence of ASE or underestimating its prevalence. If covert ASE is

used, it is especially important to make the public aware that ASE units are not visible, but that they

will have a substantial presence. A combination of overt and covert ASE units might be an effective

way to combine the visibility of overt ASE and the broad deterrence of covert ASE.

Signage

Signage plays an important role in alerting the public to the use of ASE (Makinen & Oei, 1992). Al-

though research has not been conducted to evaluate the effects of signage, it is likely that signage can

contribute to reductions in speeding, whether or not ASE is present, because it can increase both

awareness of ASE and the perceived likelihood of encountering ASE. The Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices for Streets and Highways (Federal Highway Administration, 2003), also known as the

MUTCD, provides guidance on the use and appearance of photo enforcement signs as regulatory

signs, in Section 2B.46. There are three basic types of signage:

General signage can be placed anywhere in the jurisdiction to notify drivers that the jurisdic-

tion uses ASE. General signage serves a public awareness function. The goal is to indicate

to drivers that ASE is being used in the jurisdiction and that they should not speed. To maxi-

mize awareness, general signage should be placed on major roads and entrances to the juris-

•

29

diction. Section 2B.46 of the MUTCD specifies a “Traffic Laws Photo Enforced” sign (see sign

R10-18 in Figure 4) as an option for entrances to the jurisdiction.

Fixed advance signage can be placed on any road where ASE can be used. The goal of fixed

advance signage is to alert drivers to the possible presence of ASE ahead and to encourage

them not to speed. The MUTCD specifies a “Photo Enforced” sign (see sign R10-19 in Figure

4) as an optional plaque that can be mounted below a speed limit sign. If the “Photo En-

forced” sign is used below a speed limit sign, the MUTCD requires that it “shall be a rectangle

with a black legend and border on a white background.” Fixed advance signs should primarily

be used to supplement speed limit signs, but stand-alone signs may also be used. Stand-

alone signs do not need to follow the MUTCD requirements for a regulatory sign because they

are not connected to a regulatory sign and can use different messages and formats. Some

examples of fixed advance signage are shown in Figure 6.

Temporary advance signage can be placed upstream of an active enforcement unit to inform

drivers that they are approaching ASE in progress. Temporary advance signage is generally

undesirable because drivers become aware that they will be warned and given time to slow

down before they reach the ASE unit, thereby reducing the deterrent effect of ASE. However,

temporary advance signage is often desired by the public and is sometimes required by law or

as a compromise to satisfy opponents of ASE. If temporary advance signage is used, it

should be located somewhere that it is visible and legible to approaching drivers, yet not an

obstruction to drivers, pedestrians, or cyclists. The distance between the sign and the ASE

unit can be selected by the jurisdiction, but the distance should be consistent between ASE

sessions and sites. The sign should be wind resistant so it does not move when hit by wind gusts.

•

•

If photo enforcement is conducted by unmarked (covert) units it is a good idea to note this on general

and fixed advance signs so that drivers are aware that they might not be able to see the ASE units.

Figure 4. Optional regulatory signs specified in the MUTCD

Figure 5. General signage in Scottsdale, AZ, (left) and Washington, DC (right)

Figure 6. Fixed advance signage (clockwise from upper left): Boulder, CO; Washington, DC;

San Jose, CA; San Jose, CA (again); Scottsdale, AZ; Portland, OR

Figure 7. Temporary advance signage in Charlotte, NC, (left) and Scottsdale, AZ (right)

30

Days and hours of operation

Days and hours of operation should be selected based on the times that speeding poses the greatest

risk. This can be determined by crash data and public complaints and can also factor in traffic vol-

umes, pedestrian presence, school hours, and so forth. ASE should be conducted every day of the

week, if resources are available. However, school zones should only be enforced as such when their

special speed limits are in effect and children are present or in transit. Most jurisdictions focus their

mobile operations on morning, afternoon, and evening hours, while fixed units typically operate 24

hours per day. Though ASE can be conducted in darkness if a flash is used, violation notice issuance

rates may be lower due to inadequate quality of some photographs, especially if driver identification is

required. ASE can be conducted at any time of day, but it is important to also maintain traditional en-

forcement and patrols during the late evening and overnight hours when traffic volumes are lower and

alcohol-impaired driving and other criminal activities are most likely to occur. See Chapter 4: Coordi-

nation with other traffic law enforcement efforts for additional information on integrating ASE with other

traffic law enforcement activities.

ASE strategy and scheduling

The goal of ASE deployment is to use ASE where and when it will have the greatest positive effects on

safety, while using resources efficiently. There are many ways to rotate enforcement between en-

forceable sites, and the best method for a particular jurisdiction depends upon the number of enforce-

able sites, the characteristics and locations of those sites, and the number of ASE units available.

One potential strategy is to focus ASE in one area to create a “safety zone.” As speeding in the safety

zone is reduced, the zone can be expanded by distributing enforcement across a larger area. Pro-

gram managers should maintain oversight; if not direct control, of the enforcement schedule to ensure

that the schedule is consistent with best practices identified in the jurisdiction, the goals of the strategic

plan, and the resources available for ASE.

Fixed ASE units consist of a fixed-in-place housing and the ASE unit that can be removed for service

and redeployment. The ASE unit can be permanently installed in a single, fixed location or occasion-

ally rotated among a number of sites. One way to rotate fixed ASE units is to install a greater number

of fixed ASE unit housings than there are fixed ASE units. With this strategy, some ASE housings will

be “dummy housings” that have the appearance of a functioning ASE unit, but contain an ASE unit

only when scheduled to have one. Dummy housings may have a deterrent effect, but they might also

have the opposite effect if motorists come to believe that speeding violations are not always enforced

by apparent ASE units.

One of the most important elements of a successful ASE program is to be responsive to changing

safety patterns. It is essential to understand how ASE influences driver behavior at frequently en-

forced sites, infrequently enforced sites, and sites that are never enforced. For example, some drivers

may avoid roads where ASE is used in favor of roads that are not enforced. Traffic and safety trends

may also develop that are unrelated to ASE activity. Chapter 4: Ongoing improvements to enforce-

ment plan provide more information on reevaluating and fine-tuning the enforcement plan.

Site-specific effects versus jurisdiction-wide effects

When deciding how to distribute enforcement to eligible sites, the agency should consider the goals of

the ASE program and its desired effects on speeding and other driver behaviors. There are two ways

to view the effects of ASE on speeding:

Site-specific effects, and

Jurisdiction-wide effects.

31

•

•

Site-specific effects are the effects observed at locations where ASE is used. Speeding is usually

substantially reduced in the vicinity of active enforcement, but may return to baseline levels as little as

one-half mile beyond the ASE unit. Site-specific speed reductions also tend to deteriorate quickly

when ASE is not present. The key to maximizing site-specific speeding reductions is to use ASE to

reduce speeding, and then use recurring ASE to maintain acceptable speeding levels. To reduce

speeding at a site, the use of ASE at that site should be publicized and ASE should be visible and fre-

quent during the times when speeding is most problematic. Speeds should be monitored at the site

when ASE is present and when it is not present to determine the effects of recurring ASE deploy-

ments. When speeding has been reduced by an acceptable amount and positive effects persist even

when the ASE unit is not present, enforcement can occur less frequently, with the goal of maintaining

speeding reductions through deterrence.

Jurisdiction-wide effects are the overall effects on speeding observed throughout the jurisdiction, in-

cluding on roads that are not enforced by ASE. Jurisdiction-wide effects are likely to be less dramatic

than site-specific speed reductions, but even small changes in driver behavior can have a substantial

effect on safety throughout the jurisdiction. The key to maximizing jurisdiction-wide speeding reduc-

tions is to maximize the perceived likelihood of encountering an ASE unit anywhere in the jurisdiction.

To achieve this, it is important to promote public awareness of ASE and to select ASE sites that dis-

tribute enforcement throughout the jurisdiction, encompassing a variety of road types. Covert en-

forcement units can also help to improve jurisdiction-wide effects (see Chapter 4: Overt versus

covert enforcement).

Both site-specific and jurisdiction-wide speeding reductions are desirable, but in many cases there is a

tradeoff between achieving site-specific and jurisdiction-wide speeding reductions. Some of these

tradeoffs are listed in Table 2. When dealing with these tradeoffs, it is important to consider the goals

identified in the strategic plan (see Chapter 2: Develop a strategic plan). If the program is focused on

speeding reductions in a limited number of target areas or if crashes are overwhelmingly clustered on

particular stretches of roadway, a more site-specific approach might be most advisable. If the goals of

the program are more general and geographically distributed, a jurisdiction-wide approach might be

most effective. In most cases, the solution will be somewhere in the middle, with a program designed

to have a positive influence on targeted problem areas and throughout the jurisdiction.

Scheduling ASE deployments

As mentioned in Chapter 4: Days and hours of operation, it is important to schedule mobile ASE at a

site during the times when the speeding-related safety risk is greatest. The ASE deployment plan,

however, can also be scheduled to provide the most enforcement at sites with the most substantial

speed-related safety problems. For instance, a major road with a substantial and persistent speeding

problem might warrant more frequent enforcement than a residential road with a less substantial

speeding problem.

The duration of mobile enforcement shifts should reflect the span of time when speeding is most prob-

lematic at a given site. For instance, a two- to three-hour shift might encompass an evening rush

hour. Enforcement should typically be scheduled in shifts of no more than four hours to provide ASE

operators with break time and variety. Although mobile ASE should be scheduled for specific times

and locations, flexibility should be allowed for situations where the scheduled site is unenforceable due

to sun glare, lack of safe location for ASE unit, roadway construction, traffic incidents, and so forth.

32

Table 2. Ways to achieve site-specific and jurisdiction-wide speeding reductions

Site-specific effects

Jurisdiction-wide effects

Reference

Overt enforcement

Covert enforcement

Chapter 4: Overt versus

covert enforcement

Announce ASE site locations to

public

Withhold ASE site locations

from public

Chapter 3: Promote

awareness of ASE program

Fixed ASE units

Mobile ASE units

Chapter 2: Types of ASE

systems

Few road types/areas enforce-

able

Many road types/areas en-

forceable

Chapter 3: Road types

ASE focused on small number of

sites

ASE distributed amongst large

number of sites

Chapter 3: Selection fac-

tors

All fixed ASE sites operating

full-time

Rotate fixed ASE units among

many sites (dummy housings)

Chapter 4: ASE strategy

and scheduling

Use of fixed advance signage

and temporary advance signage

Use of general signage

Chapter 4: Signage

Immediate driver feedback

An important element of speed enforcement is the connection that drivers make between their speed-

ing behavior and the penalty for that behavior. With ASE, a span of days or weeks may separate the

violation from the receipt of the violation notice, so without immediate feedback drivers may be unable

to recall the situation when the violation was recorded. Immediate feedback can help to maintain the

cause-and-effect relationship between speeding and its penalties, alert drivers to the possibility they

will receive a violation notice, and deter future speeding.

To the extent possible, drivers should immediately be made aware when their vehicles are recorded

committing violations. Flash photography can present a passive indication that the vehicle has been

photographed. A speed display board on or near the enforcement unit can also be used to indicate

the speed of passing vehicles, though they may also confuse drivers who are not aware whether their

vehicle is the one whose speed was displayed. If a speed display board is used, it should only display

speeds of recorded violators so that non-violators do not think that they were recorded as violators. In

general, they should not be used when the ASE unit is enforcing more than one traffic lane. Speed

display boards are required by law in Oregon (see Figure 8). If speed display boards or other change-

able message signs are used to present information to passing vehicles, messages should be de-

signed to minimize distraction and should comply with requirements in the MUTCD (FWHA, 2003).

33

Figure 8. Mobile ASE unit with speed display board in Portland, OR

Coordination with other traffic law enforcement efforts

ASE should be used to supplement, but not replace, other traffic law enforcement activities. ASE can

only be used to observe speeding violations, so police officers must be active on roads to observe traf-

fic for other violations. Police presence is an important deterrent to impaired driving and other criminal

activity on roadways. Police presence should be especially high during hours when impaired driving

and other non-speeding violations occur most frequently. High-profile enforcement activities such as

heightened police presence on holiday weekends and sobriety checkpoints can help to remind the

public that ASE is only one aspect of traffic law enforcement.

ASE and traditional traffic law enforcement can also be used in combination. One option is to station a

traffic law enforcement officer simultaneously on the same road as an ASE unit. This strategy may

lead to a more widespread deterrent effect by indicating to drivers that once they pass an enforcement

unit, there may still be additional enforcement presence on the road. Furthermore, being stopped by a

police officer immediately interrupts drivers’ speeding behavior, while drivers photographed by ASE

may continue to drive at unsafe speeds. Another coordinated enforcement strategy is to alternate en-

forcement at a location between ASE and traditional traffic law enforcement. No research exists to

indicate the effectiveness of strategies for combined ASE and traditional enforcement.

Another option is to use ASE in conjunction with speed display boards. Speed display boards (see

Figure 9) may be placed upstream of an ASE unit to inform drivers of their speed and the speed limit

on the road. The speed display board may also indicate that ASE is being conducted ahead. If the

public is properly informed that speed display boards are often followed by ASE, it is possible that

speed limit compliance may be improved and speed reductions may be extended over greater dis-

tances than with ASE alone. One study conducted on a road with a 50 km/h (31 mi/h) speed limit

found that a speed display board located 150 meters before a fixed ASE unit on a reduced the propor-

tion of vehicles speeding at least 10 km/h (6.2 mi/h) above the limit at the ASE site from 12.6 percent

to 2.1 percent (Woo, 2007).

34

Figure 9. Portable speed display board

Ongoing improvements to enforcement plan

The enforcement plan should adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the jurisdiction. Speed data and

crash data should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine whether resources should be shifted to

respond to changing patterns. Different patterns of enforcement can be used and evaluated to deter-

mine how resources can be used most efficiently. Public opinion should be sought to determine which

aspects of the program are popular and which are unpopular. Reevaluation of the enforcement plan is

especially important in the first months of the program because growing public familiarity with the pro-

gram is likely to influence driving patterns and because no matter how well planned the program is, it

is difficult to predict the ideal distribution of ASE resources before enforcement begins.

FIELD OPERATIONS

Operator staffing and training

Unlike traditional traffic law enforcement, mobile ASE unit operators in most States do not have to be

sworn police officers. While some jurisdictions do require sworn police officers to conduct ASE, others

use non-sworn police employees, other local government employees, or employees of the equipment

vendor. Traffic law enforcement officers have credibility with the public in terms of promoting the use

of ASE as a tool for law enforcement. They are also likely to have the best sense of the relationship

between ASE and other traffic law enforcement activities and are under direct police supervision.

Vendor employees and other non-police operators might be perceived as unqualified and might also

lead to accusations of outsourcing police responsibilities, operator conflict of interest, and an emphasis

on revenue generation. Still, there are some advantages to non-police operation of ASE. First, some

jurisdictions report that police officers find ASE operation undesirable or uninteresting and would pre-

fer direct contact with motorists (though supervisors should emphasize that officers conducting ASE

can issue many more citations than if they were conducting traditional enforcement). Second, the use

of non-police operators frees police officers to conduct activities that they alone are qualified for.

Third, if the vendor supplies mobile unit operators, ASE staffing costs may be lower and the jurisdic-

tion is relieved of the need to hire and train operators. No matter who operates ASE units, the jurisdic-

tion’s program manager must maintain control and oversight of all ASE activities and monitor the op-

eration to ensure that operators are in full compliance with laws and policies.

Most vendors provide training for ASE operators, regardless of their affiliation. Supplementary docu-

mentation and training should be provided by the jurisdiction to familiarize operators with jurisdiction

policies and procedures and to provide equipment training, if necessary. Even after training, ASE op-

erators may require practice and experience before they achieve peak performance. Close supervi-

sion should be provided to new operators.

Unit location and setup procedures

ASE units should only be located in areas where they do not create an unsafe situation for operators

or roadway users. A location might be unsafe if it protrudes into the traveled way, if there is a risk that

vehicles will crash into the unit, or if the unit obstructs drivers’ or pedestrians’ sight. Units should not

impede the way of bicyclists and pedestrians. All roadside equipment should meet the safety specifi-

cations provided in NCHRP Report 350 (Ross, Sicking, Zimmer, & Michie, 1993). Specific setup fac-

tors such as direction of observed travel, distance from observed traffic, and angle of offset are largely

determined by the functional requirements of the detection and violation recording equipment. An-

other consideration is sun glare, which varies by direction of observed travel and time of day.

If required, a temporary advance sign should be placed the appropriate distance upstream of the ASE

unit (see Chapter 4: Signage). Equipment should be tested and proper operations should be verified

before beginning an enforcement session. Equipment should be checked to ensure proper configura-

tion and aim of violation detection equipment and cameras, proper focus of cameras, and proper func-

tion of flashes and computer equipment.

A checklist may be used to ensure that proper and consistent procedures are followed for mobile ASE.

The checklist should address site verification, unit location, lanes and directions of travel observed,

equipment startup and calibration, operations, and ending the session. A checklist may be integrated

into the ASE technology to decrease the likelihood of errors and to allow the system to electronically

verify and record the use of proper procedures. This record may be presented as evidence if a citation

recipient challenges the citation at a hearing (see Chapter 6: Options for violation notice recipient).

The checklist used by ASE unit operators in Beaverton, Oregon, is shown in Appendix D.

Event documentation

Mobile ASE operators should maintain a log to document specific information about the equipment

setup and individual violations. The purpose of an event log is to provide a human observation to

compare with the data recorded by the ASE system. Important event information to log includes time

of event, vehicle descriptors (e.g., type of vehicle, color), lane location, visual confirmation of speed-

ing, and situational factors such as the presence of pedestrians, active school hours, or the presence

of emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Log data can either confirm or contradict ASE data. For

instance, if the vehicle type recorded in the event log does not match the vehicle in the photograph

taken by the ASE system, the violation should be voided. The same may be true if the ASE operator

notes that an emergency vehicle with flashing lights was photographed by the ASE system. Event

logs should be available to violation processing staff (see Chapter 5: Violation validation) and should

be presented as evidence at a hearing to contest a violation notice, if one is requested by the alleged

violator (see Chapter 6: Contest violation). Though not required by law in most jurisdictions, event

logs should be used as a safeguard to ensure proper system operation and to assure the public that

the system is constantly monitored by a trained operator.

35

Data transfer

ASE data includes photographs, electronic data recorded by the ASE system, and additional informa-

tion and notes recorded by the ASE operator, such as an event log (see Chapter 4: Event documen-

tation). Ideally, violation data from ASE sessions should be transferred for processing within 24 hours

of violation occurrence to ensure that violation notices are sent to alleged violators as quickly as pos-

sible. A maximum span of time between violation detection and data transfer may be mandated to

ensure timely processing (see Chapter 5: Timeliness of processing). Transfer methods will largely

depend upon the system provided by the equipment vendor. If the system uses wet film, the film must

be manually transferred to a location where the film can be developed and processed. If the system

uses digital photography, photos may be transferred via electronic media or even wirelessly from the

field. Though electronic transfer of digital images offers advantages in terms of ease and speed of

transfer, particular care must be taken to ensure data security. ASE system data and operator event

logs should preferably be maintained in electronic form to allow transfer via electronic media or a net-

work connection. Chapter 3: Information management: Compatibility, flow, and security provide more

information on privacy and security of ASE systems. Another critical aspect of data transfer is ensur-

ing that the photographs, ASE data, and operator logs that comprise the violation record are linked

together to maintain a complete record of the alleged violation. Many jurisdictions print violation data

directly to the violation photograph to ensure record linkage. Violation records must also contain iden-

tifying information that can be used to track the status of alleged violations and query the database

to find relevant information. Violation status tracking is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5:

Status tracking.

Equipment maintenance and calibration

In addition to field testing of equipment during session setup, ASE equipment should undergo regular

maintenance to ensure that equipment continues to function properly and accurately. Speed-

measuring equipment should be calibrated on a regularly scheduled basis, and after repairs are made,

in a qualified testing laboratory. Proper configurations, focus, computer equipment, flash and image

capture processes for the equipment should be checked according to established standards, local law

and manufacturer’s specifications. NHTSA (2004a; 2004b; 2004c; in press) provides standards for

detection equipment testing and calibration. Further instructions may be available from the equipment

manufacturer. Maintenance and calibration is sometimes conducted by the equipment vendor or

equipment manufacturer. Maintenance and calibration records should be kept on file as evidence of

system accuracy and integrity, and may be submitted as evidence at hearings when individuals con-

test ASE citations.

36

37

CHAPTER 5: VIOLATION NOTICE PROCESSING AND DELIVERY

Violation notice processing is a process in which photographs, event data, and operator event logs are

reviewed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a speeding violation took

place and whether the evidence can be linked to the individual who is responsible for the citation.

During this process, the burden of proof is upon the jurisdiction to find that a violation did occur. Nu-

merous checks must be performed to ensure that violation criteria are met and records that do not

meet the criteria should be dismissed before citations are issued.

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

Violation notice processing staff can be employees of the vendor, police employees, or other jurisdic-

tion employees, but regardless of affiliation all processors must be trained according to jurisdiction

policies and procedures and should be supervised by jurisdiction management. It is essential that the

program managers maintain adequate control and supervision of the violation processing staff. In

2002, a Denver County judge found that Denver’s ASE program violated Denver Revised Municipal

Code §54-19 because the city wrongfully delegated police duties (summons preparation) to the ASE

vendor. The judge also found that the program violated Colorado Revised Statute §42-4-110.5 be-

cause the city wrongfully paid the vendor for services beyond provision of equipment (City and County

of Denver v. Pirosko, 2002).

Violations typically should not be processed by the same individuals who operated the ASE units be-

cause operational errors may be more likely to go undetected. Jurisdiction managers should also be

responsible for reviewing violation notices to ensure that they are valid before they are delivered to

recipients. Quality control and violation review procedures are described in further detail in Chapter 5:

Review and quality control procedures.

VIOLATION VALIDATION

The first step in violation notice processing is to review the evidence and determine whether there is

sufficient evidence to indicate that a violation did occur. Processors should ensure that the session

information recorded by the ASE operator (e.g., location, lane(s) observed, date, time) is correct and

that ASE was authorized at that time and location. Each photograph should be reviewed to ensure

that only one vehicle was within the detection zone at the time that speed was recorded, that the vehi-

cle has a legible license plate, and, if necessary, that the photograph includes the driver’s face. If the

system captured more than one photograph (e.g., one of the rear for license plate identification and

one of the front for driver identification), the photos should be compared to ensure that they represent

the same vehicle. Event data recorded by the speed-measuring component should be reviewed to

ensure that the vehicle’s speed was in excess of the enforcement threshold and that other values such

as vehicle distance from the enforcement unit are within reasonable bounds and consistent with the

photographic evidence. Processors should review event logs to ensure that the ASE operator’s

documentation supports the evidence provided by the photograph and other violation data. If con-

secutive photographs or a video record of the violation are recorded, they should be reviewed for vis-

ual confirmation of excessive speed.

MATCHING VIOLATION INFORMATION TO DRIVER AND VEHICLE RECORDS

If it is determined that a violation did occur and the evidence is sufficient to identify the vehicle license

plate (and driver, if necessary), the next step is to retrieve information about the registered owner of

the vehicle. These records are maintained by motor vehicle administrations and an arrangement must

be made with the agency to obtain access to these records. If the vendor is responsible for violation

processing, the vendor will often arrange to receive records directly from the motor vehicle administra-

tion. Regardless of which organization is given access to motor vehicle records, care must be taken to

protect sensitive information and to limit record access to the information needed to process ASE vio-

lations. Violation processors should not have access to the entire database of registration information,

but should only have access to the relevant information about vehicles that were recorded allegedly

committing a violation. One method is to acquire vehicle information in batches. With this method,

violation processors can gather a list of license plate numbers of violators and then send this list to the

motor vehicle administration. The motor vehicle administration can then deliver the relevant registra-

tion information to data processors.

Once registration information has been received, violation processors should perform a second check

to ensure that the make and model of the vehicle reported in the registration information matches the

vehicle in the violation photo. If the jurisdiction requires positive identification of the driver, then addi-

tional steps may be required to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation.

Most jurisdictions that require driver identification first determine whether the driver in the violation

photo is of the same gender as a registered owner of the vehicle. If there is a gender mismatch, the

only practical way to identify the driver is to ask the registered owner of the vehicle to identify him or

her. Some jurisdictions have found this procedure to be excessively burdensome and unpopular with

the public and have therefore opted to dismiss violations in which there is a gender mismatch. In ju-

risdictions that perform an initial gender match, about one in five recorded violations is dismissed be-

cause of a gender mismatch. If there is a gender match between the photograph and the registration

information, a violation notice can be sent to the registered owner indicating that the vehicle was ob-

served committing a violation and that the registered owner must either admit guilt by paying the fine,

attest that he or she was not the driver at the time of the violation, or contest the citation in court.

These alternatives are addressed in further detail in Chapter 6: Options for violation notice recipient.

38

DELIVERY TO RECIPIENTS

If sufficient evidence exists to determine that a violation has occurred, a violation notice should be de-

livered to the registered owner of the vehicle. The most practical and cost-effective delivery method is

postal mail. Envelopes should be clearly marked with the name of the enforcing agency. More infor-

mation on violation notices is provided in Chapter 6: Information on violation notice and Chapter 6:

Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice.

REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

Quality control procedures are essential to ensure that violation processing staff is following all proce-

dures correctly and to discover errors and flaws early in the process. At a minimum, violations

deemed valid by processors should be spot checked by law enforcement supervisors. Ideally, all vio-

lations should be reviewed and certified by at least two individuals. If two reviewers disagree on

whether a violation is valid, it should be sent to a supervisor for review. Traffic law enforcement offi-

cers are appropriate reviewers because they are knowledgeable about traffic laws and enforcement

technologies, because police officer certification of citations more closely matches traditional enforce-

ment methods, and because the public is likely to perceive police review of citations as more credible

than non-police review. However, non-police employees can also review violations if they are appro-

priately trained and supervised.

It is important to document the reasons that violations are invalidated to confront problems as soon as

they are discovered. If invalidations are caused by ASE operator error, the operator should receive

feedback to this effect and remedial training, if necessary. If invalidations are due to equipment fail-

ure, the problematic equipment should be replaced or repaired and recalibrated. If invalidations are

due to normal limitations of the technology or setup procedures, then ASE operator procedures should

be altered or equipment should be upgraded to meet requirements.

STATUS TRACKING

From the time that a violation is recorded until the record is purged from the system, it is essential to

track violation information. Most vendors will provide a proprietary computer system to track viola-

tions, but the jurisdiction must confirm that the vendor’s system meets the needs of the program and is

consistent with laws, regulations, and information security policies. Each violation event should be

assigned a unique identifying number so that photographs, event data, and event log information can

remain linked and accessible. The current status of violation records (e.g., violation confirmed, viola-

tion notice issued, fine paid) should be noted within each record. If violation information is retained for

statistical purposes, personally identifying information should be removed from records.

39

TIMELINESS OF PROCESSING

Violation notices must be delivered in a timely manner for the recipient to maintain a mental associa-

tion between the violation and the penalty. Long delays between the violation and the receipt of the

violation notice can result in public disapproval. The jurisdiction should establish a maximum time for

the violation to be sent. An appropriate target is two weeks or 10 business days from the date of the

violation, but faster processing times are better. The jurisdiction should establish policies that mini-

mize processing time. For instance, there could be a policy that requires violation photos and data to

be delivered for processing within 24 hours of the end of the ASE session. The arrangement to re-

ceive vehicle registration information from the motor vehicle administration should require motor vehi-

cle administration staff to deliver the information to processors in a timely manner. Adequate process-

ing staff should be in place to keep pace with violation data. Processing speed should never be

achieved at the expense of quality control and review procedures (see Chapter 5: Review and quality

control procedures).

CHAPTER 6: VIOLATION NOTICE RECEIPT AND ADJUDICATION

40

INFORMATION ON VIOLATION NOTICE

All information necessary for recipients to understand the violation notice and their response options

should be provided on the notice itself. The violation notice should clearly identify the issuing agency

and any coded information on the notice should be explained. The violation notice must include the

date, time, and location associated with the violation. The measured speed of the vehicle and the

speed limit at the location must be stated. The notice should also state the traffic law that was violated

and the fine and other penalties associated with that violation. The notice should include a violation

identification number to aid in customer service and status tracking and should make clear that the

violation notice was delivered to the registered owner of the vehicle. The notice should explain the

recipient’s due process or appeal rights. The method of requesting a hearing or trial and its date, time

and location should be explained. The notice should include at least one photograph that shows the

vehicle and the surrounding roadway, a legible image of the license plate, and, if necessary, the

driver’s face. Sections of photos may be blown up to present greater detail (e.g., license plate), but

other image enhancements that alter the appearance of photos should not be used. Color photo-

graphs are preferable. A sample citation from Charlotte, North Carolina, is presented in Appendix E.

If a video record of the violation was also captured, notice recipients may be given instructions on how

to access the video, such as on the Internet or at a government site. After viewing the violation video,

notice recipients may be less likely to contest the violation.

The violation notice should describe the response options for the recipient, payment methods, the due

date for response, and the results of a failure to respond by the due date. The burden for response

should be minimal and should not require in-person appearances at government facilities. Multiple

payment methods should be available and people should be able to pay by mail or in-person. If there

is an online payment option, the payment system must be secured from unauthorized access or tam-

pering (see Chapter 3: Information management: Compatibility, flow, and security). The notice should

also direct recipients to other sources of information about the program including customer service

contacts. A pre-addressed envelope should be provided for recipients to mail in their payment or other

response to the notice. Additional information can also be provided as supplementary material deliv-

ered with the violation notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL DELIVERED WITH VIOLATION NOTICE

Supplementary information can be delivered with violation notices to help recipients understand how

ASE works, why it is used, and what their options are to respond to the notice. Effective use of sup-

plementary material can improve notice recipients’ understanding and acceptance of the program, re-

duce the difficulty and stress of responding to the notice, and reduce the burden on customer service

representatives. Supplementary material should include:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Description of ASE technology;

Support for the legality of ASE;

Description of the violation review process;

Description of the goal to reduce speeding-related crashes;

Summary of positive effects of the ASE program;

Options for recipient to respond to the notice;

List of frequently asked questions (FAQ) and their answers;

If available, the community ASE Web site; and

References to sources of additional information or support.

The purposes of the program should be described with an emphasis on reducing speeding-related

crashes and speeding. The harmful effects of speeding within the jurisdiction should be described,

along with the positive effects of ASE observed in the jurisdiction, if data is available. Positive effects

observed in other jurisdictions may be cited as well. The description should emphasize the degree of

precision and accuracy and the training received by the ASE operator. The legality of ASE should be

asserted and common arguments made against ASE should be debunked (see Table 1 above for ex-

amples). The review process should be described with an emphasis on the presence of a trained re-

viewer and the quality control procedures in place. Violation notice recipients’ options should be noted

on the citation itself, but additional details may be presented within supplementary materials. For in-

stance, a list of common questions and their answers can be provided. Recipients should also be di-

rected to other sources of information, such as a Web site or customer service contact. Customer

service and support is discussed in Chapter 6: Additional help and support.

41

OPTIONS FOR VIOLATION NOTICE RECIPIENT

Jurisdiction policies should allow violation notice recipients to respond to the violation notice in one of

three ways: accept responsibility for the violation, deny responsibility for the violation, or contest the

citation at a hearing. The specific procedures involved for each of these options must be defined by

the jurisdiction. For all options, the jurisdiction should make all reasonable efforts to minimize the bur-

den placed upon violation notice recipients.

Accept responsibility

The most common way for violation notice recipients to accept responsibility for the violation is to pay

the fine. One possible alternative is to allow violators to take a driving safety class in return for a re-

duction or dismissal of penalties. Jurisdictions may consider providing a payment extension or in-

stallment payment option for individuals without the means to pay citations by their due date. In some

jurisdictions, a failure to respond to the notice by the due date also constitutes acceptance of respon-

sibility and a waiver of the ability to contest the notice. Non-response is addressed in greater detail in

Chapter 6: Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice.

Deny responsibility

If violation notice recipients deny that they were the driver of the vehicle at the time that the violation

occurred, they should be granted the opportunity to respond to the violation notice with a certification

of innocence. If drivers are not photographed in the jurisdiction, a certification of innocence should

require either the identification of the actual driver at the time of the violation or evidence that the vehi-

cle was not in the legal possession of the registered owner at the time of the violation. Requirements

for driver identification should discourage driver identification fraud: violation notice recipients may be

required to provide an address, phone number, and driver’s license number of the actual driver, and

penalties for intentionally false identifications should be emphasized. A person who chooses to file a

certificate of innocence may be required to have the document notarized for legal certification. Spe-

cific procedures related to violation notices issued to business vehicles and government vehicles are

addressed in Chapter 6: Violation notices issued to government and business vehicles. If driver iden-

tification is required by the jurisdiction, violation notice recipients may be required to send a copy of

their driver’s licenses as evidence of innocence. If the driver’s license photo does not match the photo

of the driver of the vehicle, the violation may either be dismissed or the violation notice recipient may

be required to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. Most jurisdictions have

opted to dismiss violations if the recipient provides evidence that he or she was not the driver because

of the burden created by the driver identification requirement.

Contest violation

Violation notice recipients must be provided the opportunity to contest violations at a hearing. If ASE

violations carry license sanctions as penalties, hearing procedures should be the same as those for

non-automated speeding violations. If ASE violations do not carry license sanctions, then procedures

may be more like those for non-moving violations such as parking tickets and registration violations.

Specific requirements and procedures may be required by State or local law.

An individual must be present at the hearing to represent the ASE program. If the violation was re-

corded by a manned mobile ASE unit, the operator whose unit recorded the violation may represent

the ASE program. If the violation was recorded by an unmanned unit, an ASE expert from either the

jurisdiction or the vendor should represent the ASE program. However, vendor experts may be per-

ceived as less credible if they have a financial stake, so jurisdiction experts are generally preferable.

In prosecuting ASE violations, one of the most important responsibilities of the expert is to explain the

technology and assert its validity and reliability. This is especially important during the ASE program’s

first weeks and months, and when the individual presiding over the hearing is inexperienced in hearing

ASE cases (see Chapter 2: Obtain interagency and community support for guidance on securing sup-

port from the judiciary). Testimony by ASE program representatives should follow a script to ensure

that they present thorough and accurate descriptions of the ASE technology, violation processing pro-

cedures, and the violation in question. If available, the unit operator’s event log should be used as

evidence to support the prosecution and to refute erroneous claims by the defendant. Additional ma-

terial such as a video of the violation, site photographs, crash history statistics, and site speed distribu-

tion charts can provide additional support.

42

PROCEDURES IF RECIPIENT DOES NOT RESPOND TO VIOLATION NOTICE

Procedures and penalties for overdue violation notices should be made clear to recipients to encour-

age a response to the initial notice. Recipients of violation notices may fail to respond to the violation

notice by the due date for a variety of reasons: the notice may be misplaced or unintentionally dis-

carded, it may be sent to an outdated address, the recipient may forget about the notice or procrasti-

nate until the due date passes, or it may be willfully disregarded. When the due date has passed, a

reminder notice should be sent to the registered owner. The notice should specify a new due date

and any penalties associated with the failure to respond to the initial notice or the second notice. Ad-

ditional penalties for a failure to respond to the first notice or subsequent notices may include the in-

ability to contest the citation or proclaim innocence, late fees, inability to reregister the vehicle or driv-

ers license, license suspension, or vehicle immobilization (e.g., with a Denver boot) or impounding.

Overdue violations may also be referred to a collection agency for service by mail or in person. It may

also be possible for the jurisdiction to collect debts from violators’ tax returns. State and local laws

and procedures for overdue non-automated speeding violations should be considered when develop-

ing procedures for overdue ASE violation notices.

VIOLATION NOTICES ISSUED TO GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS VEHICLES

Vehicles registered to government agencies and businesses (including vehicle rental or leasing busi-

nesses) pose a special challenge because these vehicles are unlikely to be driven by their registered

owners. It is important to take all reasonable measures to identify the drivers of these vehicles. When

registration records indicate that a speeding vehicle is owned by a government agency or a business,

a form should be sent to the registered owner or fleet manager requesting the identification of the

driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. To do this, vehicle fleet managers may need to consult

vehicle use log books to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. This level

of compliance may be required by policy in government agencies, but may be more difficult to achieve

with business vehicles. If no response to the notice is received, or the responsible individual is not

identified, State and local laws may determine whether the organization is responsible for the violation

notice or it should be dismissed. In Victoria, Australia, businesses that do not identify the driver of a

violating vehicle are subject to a fine greater than the maximum fine for an ASE violation, but license

sanctions are not assessed (Victorian Road Safety [General] Regulations 1999, 2005).

Special considerations must also be made for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police

cruisers. In addition to determining the identity of the driver, it is important to determine whether an

emergency vehicle was responding to an emergency at the time of the recorded violation. Dispatch

information should be used to make this determination. If available, ASE operator event logs should

also be consulted to determine whether the vehicle had active emergency lights or sirens.

Every ASE violation committed by a government vehicle (including emergency vehicles while not on

an emergency call) should be reviewed by the driver’s supervisor or a fleet manager. Penalties and

43

procedures to contest the violation should be the same as for the general public, though government

vehicle drivers may face additional disciplinary action in accordance with department policies.

ACCESSIBILITY OF VIOLATION NOTICE

Violation notices should be designed to maximize accessibility to all potential recipients. All important

information should be presented in plain language and small “fine print” should not be used. If there is

a large non-English-speaking population in the jurisdiction, the violation notice may be fully or partially

multilingual. The violation notice may also include a reference to a Web site, phone number, or other

source where support is available in other languages.

ADDITIONAL HELP AND SUPPORT

Additional help and support should be available to people who have questions or comments about the

ASE program or a particular violation. People should be encouraged to seek information on the pro-

gram Web site or in supplementary information provided with violation notices before contacting ASE

program representatives (see Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice for

guidance on providing supplementary materials). Support should be available over the phone and,

optionally, in person at a government building or customer service location. Representatives should

be thoroughly knowledgeable about program policies and procedures, especially those related to the

rights, responsibilities, and options of violation notice recipients. The purposes and outcomes of sup-

port calls should be recorded and regularly reviewed by program mangers to determine what confu-

sions and misunderstandings people have about the program and to improve informational materials

to address these issues.

44

CHAPTER 7: PROGRAM EVALUATION

ASE program evaluation is critical to understand how the program is affecting safety and how it is per-

ceived by the public. An evaluation plan should be developed during the program planning phase

(see Chapter 2). Minimal evaluation methods can include tracking speeds at enforced sites, crashes,

and citation issuance. If resources are available, more sophisticated analyses should be conducted to

investigate crash effects, speed effects, and public awareness and acceptance. This chapter provides

guidelines on:

•

•

•

Program monitoring

Statistical analysis of speeds and crash effects

Evaluation of public awareness and acceptance

BASIC PROGRAM MONITORING

At a minimum, basic data about program operations should be recorded and analyzed. Speed data

should be recorded by ASE units during enforcement sessions, then transferred and maintained in a

community-wide database. This data can be used to determine the range of speeds of passing vehi-

cles and the frequency of speeding violations. Speed data can give a general idea of the effective-

ness that ASE units have in lowering vehicle speeds when they are present. Violation frequency data

can help to estimate the number of violations that will need to be processed and give an early indica-

tion if trends in violation frequencies are changing. If possible, speed data should also be collected

covertly when ASE units are not present to determine the lingering effects of ASE, which are some-

times called halo effects. Key variables include the percentage of vehicles speeding above the speed

limit, the enforcement threshold, and 85th, 90th, and 95th percentile speeds. The percentage of drivers

speeding above the mean speed and measures of dispersion such as speed variance may also be of

interest, but are of less direct relevance to safety. Crash statistics should also be monitored at ASE

sites and throughout the jurisdiction to identify the highest priority sites for ASE. Particular attention

should be given to crashes where speeding was a factor and where crashes were severe. Evaluation

of crash and speed data is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 7: Statistical evaluation of crash

effects and speed effects.

STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CRASH EFFECTS AND SPEED EFFECTS

The most important measures of ASE effectiveness are its effects on crashes and vehicle speeds.

Issues related specifically to crash effects are addressed in Chapter 7: Crash effects and issues re-

lated specifically to speed effects are addressed in Chapter 7: Speed effects. Issues common to both

types of data are addressed in this section. Statistical evaluations should be conducted by an inde-

pendent organization with experience in evaluation design and statistical analyses. Evaluations con-

ducted by an agency with a stake in the ASE program may be perceived as biased and less credible

by the public.

Crash and speed effects can be evaluated at individual ASE sites, at the entire set of ASE sites, or

throughout the jurisdiction. Data from individual sites is useful to determine where ASE is having the

greatest positive effects and where improvements should be made to the enforcement plan (see

Chapter 4: Ongoing improvements to enforcement plan). It can also help to identify where confounds

(other factors that affect driver behavior) may be present. Data from the entire set of ASE sites can be

used to determine the direct effects of ASE where it is used. Jurisdiction-wide data can be used to

determine whether ASE is influencing behavior beyond enforced sites.

Program evaluators are cautioned to avoid oversimplifying the effects of ASE. The evaluation should

encompass more than just a simple comparison of data before ASE was implemented versus data

during ASE activity. There are many phases of an ASE program, which can be loosely defined as follows:

Pre-ASE. This is the stage before the marketing and media campaign begins, before wide-

spread public awareness of the program, and before site locations are announced. This is the

true “before” data in a before-and-after evaluation of ASE effects.

Approach. This is the stage that includes the marketing and media campaign and other efforts

to raise public awareness. Driver behavior may begin to change during this phase in anticipa-

tion of enforcement or as a result of a heightened awareness of the dangers of speeding in-

stilled by marketing and media efforts.

Warning period. This is an optional phase during which the ASE program is operational, but

only warning notices are being delivered (see Chapter 3: Program rollout and warming period).

Full implementation. This phase begins when the ASE program is in operation and citations

are being delivered. Even within this full implementation, driver behavior is likely to continue

to change for many months as people adapt to and become familiar with the program.

Changes in program operations and confounding variables may continue to influence behavior

years into the program.

Post-implementation. ASE operations may be ceased at a site or throughout the jurisdiction

for a variety of reasons. Data collection at former ASE sites can provide valuable data on

driver behavior. For example, it may be of interest to determine whether speeding and

crashes occur more frequently once ASE is removed, and how long it takes for these meas-

ures to reach or exceed their pre-ASE levels. A study conducted on a freeway in Scottsdale,

Arizona, found that the rate of speeding violation detection increased by 836 percent after the

fixed ASE units were deactivated (Washington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007).

45

•

•

•

•

•

The first and fourth phases are the most important to assess the effects of the ASE program, but the

other phases can also shed light on the ways in which behavior is changing and to help identify the

reasons for this.

One of the major challenges to an ASE evaluation is identifying confounds and controlling for them.

There are numerous factors that can influence driver behavior. These include time of day, day of

week, seasonal patterns, weather patterns, daylight patterns, traffic volumes, changes in the vehicle

fleet, changes to roadways, or their safety features, changes in laws, driver demographics, police

presence, public information and education campaigns, changes to the ASE program plan, and so

forth. Although it is impossible to eliminate all possible confounds, it is possible to control for their ef-

fects by also collecting data at comparison sites.

Comparison sites can show whether there were any changes in crash patterns or speed patterns at

locations where ASE was not an influence. Comparison sites may be located within the ASE-enforced

jurisdiction or in a nearby jurisdiction without ASE but otherwise with comparable characteristics.

Comparison sites within the jurisdiction can control for many potential confounds, but it may be

impossible to distinguish between effects that are independent of ASE and those that are related to

ASE. Comparison sites outside the jurisdiction may eliminate the influence of ASE, but may be sub-

ject to different confounds than those in the enforced jurisdiction (e.g., the effectiveness of its conven-

tional speed enforcement program). Although comparison sites are not likely to perfectly control for all

confounds, they are important to account for and understand the trends that are influencing crashes

and speeds.

One additional confound that can influence the effects of an ASE evaluation is regression to the mean.

This refers to the natural tendency for a site that has recently experienced a high number of crashes to

return to its baseline crash level without any intervention. In many cases, sites are selected for ASE

because they have recently experienced a substantial number of crashes. The problem with this is

that it is unclear whether this high number of crashes represents a continuing trend of high crash fre-

quency or simply an anomaly that will pass, with the site crash frequency ultimately returning to its

baseline level. Therefore, if ASE is used at such a site, it may be unclear whether ASE caused the

reduction in crashes or whether it was due to regression to the mean. It is possible to partially control

for regression to the mean by selecting comparison sites that have experienced similar increases in

46

crashes or by selecting sites with long-established histories of frequent crashes rather than those that

have experienced a recent upsurge.

Crash effects

Crash effects are the most direct measure of an ASE program’s effectiveness. Crashes can be bro-

ken down by whether or not they had speed as a causal or contributing factor, and by level of severity,

with common crash categories including property damage only, injury, and fatality. It is important to

focus on speed-related crashes and to establish clear definitions for categories of severity. Crashes

that are not reported to the police are unlikely to be available for analysis, though unreported crashes

are likely to be minor. Crash documentation should be reviewed to ensure that all variables necessary

for analysis are present. Data such as specific crash location, date, time, severity, and causal factors

(primary and secondary) is essential. Other factors such as weather conditions, vehicle type, driver

demographics, and specific mechanisms of injury may also be useful in analysis. All crashes that re-

sult in fatalities are summarized in a standard national format, provided to NHTSA, and included in the

FARS database, so additional details may be available about fatal crashes. If insufficient crash docu-

mentation is currently being collected, efforts should be made to work with police and emergency re-

sponders to collect additional information of use for ASE program analysis.

One of the challenges of crash effect analysis is collecting enough data to make statistically meaning-

ful comparisons. Crashes are relatively rare events, and injury and fatal crashes account for small

fractions of total crashes. Years of data before and after the start of ASE may be required to make

statistical comparisons, especially for crashes involving speed as a factor and injuries or fatalities.

Preliminary, non-statistical comparisons can be made in the shorter term, but care must be taken to

consider the possible effects of confounds and other external factors.

Speed effects

Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between speeding and the likelihood and severity

of a crash. Therefore, speeding can be used as an indicator of risk. To analyze overall program ef-

fects, speed data should be collected at mobile ASE sites when ASE is not present. This is because

for any given site, ASE will not be present far more often than it is present. Speeding is likely to occur

much less frequently when ASE is present than when it is not, so the reliance on speed data recorded

during ASE sessions is likely to substantially overestimate the program’s broader effects on vehicle

speeds. The enforcement agency should determine whether it has the in-house capability to operate

a comprehensive speed measurement program. If not, it would be more appropriate to use the juris-

diction’s traffic engineering function or a consultant for speed measurement.

EVALUATION OF PUBLIC AWARENESS AND ACCEPTANCE

Public awareness and acceptance of the ASE program are essential to the program’s success (see

Chapter 3: Promote awareness of ASE program and Chapter 3: Promote acceptance of ASE pro-

gram). Program managers can benefit by gaining knowledge of current levels of awareness and ac-

ceptance and by identifying areas that need improvement. The public can also benefit from the oppor-

tunity to voice their opinions and concerns about the program. There are many ways to assess public

awareness and attitudes, both formally and informally. These methods are described in Chapter 3:

Public input with regard to program startup, but they are also relevant to the evaluation of an active

ASE program. Of all evaluation methods, formal surveys are typically the most appropriate way to

assess public awareness, understanding, and acceptance. As such, surveys are singled out here for

further discussion.

Surveys can be conducted using a variety of methods, including telephone, mail, Internet, handout, or

in-person interviews. Surveys administrators should typically attempt to survey a representative sam-

ple of the relevant population (e.g., residents of the jurisdiction who have driver’s licenses). Some-

times a convenience (unrepresentative) sample may be more practical for budgetary or other reasons.

Although convenience samples can be useful as a compromise, the limitations and potential biases of

an unrepresentative sample may influence the findings of the survey.

Surveys can be used to assess public knowledge and opinions on a variety of relevant issues. They

can also include questions on issues other than ASE. Some key issues to assess using surveys include:

awareness of the ASE program’s existence;

awareness of the ASE marketing and media campaign and attitudes toward the campaign;

sources of information about ASE program;

awareness of various features and operational aspects of the program;

presence of incorrect beliefs about program features and operations;

perceived purposes of ASE;

perceived appropriateness of site selection and amount of enforcement;

general attitudes toward highway safety, speeding, and enforcement;

perceived likelihood of self or others being ticketed by ASE;

perceived changes in own driving behavior as a result of ASE;

perceived changes in behaviors of other drivers in the jurisdiction;

level of support/acceptance of ASE program;

perceived attitudes of other people toward the ASE program;

effects of ASE on roadway safety; and

desired changes to ASE program.

47

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

If possible, an expert in survey methodology should design the surveys. Questions must be worded

carefully to make sure that their meanings are clear and to avoid common pitfalls such as biased lan-

guage, vague questions, inappropriate response choices, and so forth. Surveys typically should not

include any descriptions of the program or its effects that could bias respondents. For example, a

summary of positive safety effects should only be given to respondents if the specific focus of the sur-

vey is to assess the influence of this knowledge upon attitudes and opinions. The survey must also be

designed so that the responses will provide a meaningful basis for analysis. If budget allows, ASE

program managers can hire an organization that specializes in survey research to design and conduct

surveys. In addition to the advantages in expertise that such an organization can provide, the public

may regard an independent organization as less biased than the jurisdiction. This strategy can assist

in alleviating public opposition to the program.

48

REFERENCES

Aarts, L., & van Schagen, I. (2006). Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: A review. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 38, 215-224.

Alcee, J.V., Black, J.C., Lau, R.R., Wendzel, P.M., & Lynn, C.W. (1992). Legal issues concerning the

use of photo-radar. Transportation Research Record 1375, 17-25.

Behavior Research Center, Inc. (2007). Photo-based traffic enforcement attitude study. Scottsdale,

AZ: Scottsdale Police Department.

Blincoe, K.M., Jones, A.P., Sauerzapf, V., & Haynes, R. (2006). Speeding drivers' attitudes and per-

ceptions of speed cameras in rural England. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38, 371-378.

Bowie, Jr., N.N., & Walz, M. (1994). Data analysis of the speed-related crash issue. Auto and Traffic

Safety, 2, 31-38.

Cameron, M., Cavallo, A., & Gilbert, A. (1992). Evaluation of the speed camera program in Victoria

1990-1991. Report no. 42. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Champness, P., Sheehan, M., & Folkman, L. (2005). Time and distance halo effects of an overtly de-

ployed mobile speed camera. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing

and Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

Cities of Beaverton and Portland. (1997). Photo radar demonstration project evaluation. Prepared for

Oregon Department of Transportation.

City and County of Denver v. Pirosko, case nos. S003143859, S003143912, S002999146,

S003006196, Ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss (County Court, City and County of Denver,

Colorado, 2002).

City of Winnipeg Audit Department. (2006). Photo enforcement program review. Final report. Winni-

peg, Canada: City of Winnipeg Audit Department.

Corbett, C., & Simon, F. (1999). The effects of speed cameras: How drivers respond. London: De-

partment for Transport.

Cornell, J.G. (in press). My experience with photo enforcement traffic cases in a municipal court.

Submitted for publication in The Court Manager with the National Association for Court Manage-

ment.

Cunningham, C.M., Hummer, J.E., & Moon, J.-P. (2005). An evaluation of the safety effects of speed

enforcement cameras in Charlotte, NC. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Transportation Research and

Education, North Carolina State University.

Davis, G.A. (2002). Is the claim that ‘variance kills’ an ecological fallacy? Accident Analysis and Pre-

vention, 34, 343-346.

Department for Transport. (2006). Handbook of rules and guidance for the national safety camera pro-

gramme for England and Wales for 2006/07. London: Department for Transport.

Diamantopoulou, K., & Cameron, M. (2002). An evaluation of the effectiveness of overt and covert

speed enforcement achieved through mobile radar operations. Report No. 187. Victoria, Australia:

Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Elliot, M., & Broughton, J. (2004). How methods and levels of policing affect road casualty rates. Re-

port no. TRL637. Crowthorne, England: TRL Limited.

Elvik, R. (1997). Effects on accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Norway. Transportation Re-

search Record 1595, 14-19.

Federal Highway Administration. (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and

Highways. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

Federal Highway Administration & National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). Red light

camera systems operational guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Freedman, M., Williams, A.F., & Lund, A.K. (1990). Public opinion regarding photo radar. Transporta-

tion Research Record 1270, 59-65.

Garber, N.J., & Gadiraju, R. (1988). Speed variance and its influence on accidents. Washington, DC:

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Gilbert, D.T., Sines, N.J., & Bell, B.E. (1996). Photographic traffic law enforcement. Legal Research

Digest, 36. Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

Harbord, B. (1997, October/November). Success over ‘stop-start’: Results of the M25 ‘controlled

motorway’. Traffic Technology International, special issue, 57-60.

Harkey, D.L., Robertson, H.D., & Davis, S.E. (1990). Assessment of current speed zoning criteria.

Transportation Research Record 1281, 40-51.

Hess, S. (2004). An analysis of the effects of speed limit enforcement cameras with differentiation by

road type and catchment area. Transportation Research Record 1865, 28-34.

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. (1998). Interim evaluation report on photo radar program.

Richmond, British Columbia.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2001). Traffic safety in the new millennium: Strate-

gies for law enforcement. DOT HS 809 158. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

Keall, M.D., Povey, L.J., & Frith, W.J. (2001). The relative effectiveness of a hidden versus a visible

speed camera programme. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 277-284.

Keall, M.D., Povey, L.J., & Frith, W.J. (2002). Further results from a trial comparing a hidden speed

camera programme with visible camera operation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 773-777.

Keenan, D. (2004). Speed cameras – how do drivers respond? Traffic Engineering and Control,

45, 104-111.

Kendall, S.T. (2004). Is automated enforcement constitutional? Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety.

Kockelman, K.A., & Ma, J. (2004). Freeway speeds and speed variations preceding crashes, within

and across lanes. Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

Liu, C., Chen, C.-L., Subramanian, R., & Utter, D. (2005). Analysis of speeding-related fatal motor ve-

hicle traffic crashes. Report no. DOT HS 809 839. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

Lowery, M. (2006, May 22). Ruling puts red-light cameras in peril... Retrieved July 27, 2006 from Caro-

lina Journal Online: http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3331

Makinen, T., & Oei, H.L. (1992). Automatic enforcement of speed and red light violations: Applications,

experiences and developments. Report no. R-92-58. Leidschendam, Holland: SWOV Institute for

Road Safety Research.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1992). Beyond the limits: A law enforcement guide to

speed enforcement. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2000). Guidelines for developing a municipal speed

enforcement program. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2004a). Speed-measuring device performance

specifications: Across-the-road radar module. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

49

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2004b). Speed-measuring device performance

specifications: Down-the-road radar module. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2004c). Speed-measuring device performance

specifications: Lidar module. Report no. DOT HS 809 811. Washington, DC: National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). Speed management strategic initiative. Report

no. DOT HS 809 924. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006a). Highway safety program guideline no. 19:

Speed management. In Revised highway safety program guidelines nos. 3, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20.

Docket no. NHTSA-2005-23090. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006b). Traffic safety facts: 2005 data: Overview. Re-

port no. DOT HS 810 623. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2007). Speed enforcement program guidelines.

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (in press). Speed-measuring device performance

specifications: Photo radar module. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

Pilkington, P., & Kinra, S. (2005). Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions

and related casualties: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 330, 331-334.

Povey, L.J., Frith, W.J., & Deall, M.D. (2003). An investigation of the relationship between speed en-

forcement, vehicle speeds, and injury crashes in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Institu-

tion of Professional Engineers, Transportation Group.

Q&A: Speed – law enforcement. (2006). Retrieved August 8, 2006, from

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_lawenf.html

Retting, R.A. (2003). Speed cameras - Public perceptions in the US. Traffic Engineering and Control,

44, 100-101.

Retting, R.A., & Farmer, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in the District of Co-

lumbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37.

Roberts, C.A., & Brown-Esplain, J. (2005). Technical evaluation of photo speed enforcement for free-

ways. Final report 596. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Transportation.

Ross, H.E., Sicking, D.L., Zimmer, R.A., & Michie, J.D. (1993). Recommended procedures for the

safety performance evaluation of highway features. NCHRP Report 350. Washington, DC: Na-

tional Cooperative Highway Research Program.

Royal, D. (2003). National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviors: 2002. Vol-

ume II: findings. DOT HS 809 688. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

State of Minnesota and City of Minneapolis v. Kuhlman, court file no. 05062805, Ruling on defendant’s

motion to dismiss (Hennepin County District Court, 2002).

Transportation Research Board. (1998). Managing speed. Special report 254. Washington, DC: Na-

tional Academy Press.

U.S. DOT Speed Management Team. (2005). U.S. Department of Transportation speed man-

agement strategic initiative. Report no. DOT HS 809 924. Washington, DC: National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration.

Victoria Police Traffic Camera Office. (2006). Mobile cameras policy manual. Melbourne, Australia:

State of Victoria.

50

51

Victorian Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999. (2005). Version 25. Statutory rule number 27/1999.

Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents.

Vinella, S. (2006, May 14). Cameras nab speeders by the thousands. Retrieved July 26, 2006 from

The Plain Dealer: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/

base/cuyahoga/1147595588110160.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

Washington, S., Shin, K., & Van Shalkwyk, I. (2007). Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101

photo enforcement demonstration program. Draft summary report. Phoenix, AZ: The Arizona De-

partment of Transportation.

Winnett, M.A. (2003). Speed changes at a safety camera site. Report PR/SE/708/03. Berkshire,

United Kingdom: TRL Limited.

Woo, H. (2007). Effectiveness of monitoring displays coupled with speed cameras on speed reduction.

Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

A-1

APPENDIX A: FURTHER READING

Ali, S.Y., Al-Saleh, O., & Koushki, P.A. (1997). Effectiveness of automated speed-monitoring cameras

in Kuwait. Transportation Research Record 1595, 20-26.

Anderson, R. (2000). Introducing speed cameras in the ACT - How to win friends and influence peo-

ple. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Confer-

ence, Brisbane, Australia.

Anderson, R., & Edgar, A.W. (2001). Mobile speed cameras in the ACT - Slashing speeds and cutting

crashes. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con-

ference, Melbourne, Australia.

Berkuti, C., & Osburn, W. (1998). Photo enforcement in the Wild West: National City's experience with

photo radar enforcement program. Institute of Transportation Engineers, District 6, 51st Annual

Meeting, San Diego, CA. Compendium of Technical Papers, 112-117.

Blackburn, R.R., & Gilbert, D.T. (1995). Photographic enforcement of traffic laws. NCHRP Synthesis of

Highway Practice 219.

Bloch, S.A. (1998). Comparative study of speed reduction effects of photo-radar and speed display

boards. Transportation Research Record 1640, 27-36.

Brimson, T., & Anderson, R. (2002). Fixed red light and speed cameras in Canberra: Evaluating a new

digital technology. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Educa-

tion Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Bringing down the road toll: The speed camera programme. (2002). Wellington, New Zealand: Office

of the Auditor-General.

Cairney, P, & Imberger, K. (2005). The experience of speed camera operations in Australia and New

Zealand. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con-

ference, Wellington, New Zealand.

Cameron, M., Delaney, A., Diamantopoulou, K., & Lough, B. (2003). Scientific basis for the strategic

directions of the safety camera program in Victoria. Report 202. Victoria, Australia: Monash Uni-

versity Accident Research Centre.

Cameron, M., Newstead, S., Diamantopoulou, K., & Oxley, P. (2003). The interaction between speed

camera enforcement and speed-related mass media publicity in Victoria. Report 201. Victoria,

Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Campbell, M., & Stradling, S.G. (2002). The general deterrent effect of speed camera housings. In

G.B. Grayson (Ed.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety XI (pp. 75-85). London: Department

for Transport.

Carseldine, D. (2003). Fixed, digital speed cameras in NSW: Impacts on vehicle speeds and crashes.

In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,

Sydney, Australia.

Champness, P., & Folkman, L. (2003). The impact of speed cameras on speed-related crashes over

time. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Confer-

ence, Sydney, Australia.

Chen, G., Meckle, W., & Wilson, J. (2002). Speed and safety effect of photo radar enforcement on a

highway corridor in British Columbia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 2, 129-138.

Chen, G., Wilson, J., Meckle, W., & Cooper, P. (2000). Evaluation of photo radar program in British

Columbia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 4, 517-526.

Chin, H.C. (1999). An investigation into the effectiveness of the speed camera. In Proceedings of the

Institution of Civil Engineers, 135, 2, 93-101.

Christie, S.M., Lyons, R.A., Dunstan, F.D., & Jones, S.J. (2003). Are mobile speed cameras effective?

A controlled before and after study. Injury Prevention, 9, 302-306.

Davis, G.A. (2001). NASCOP: an evaluation of photo-radar speed enforcement program. San Jose,

CA: City of San Jose.

Delaney, A., Diamantopoulou, K., & Cameron, M. (2003). MUARC's speed enforcement research:

Principles learnt and implications for practice. Report 200. Victoria, Australia: Monash University

Accident Research Centre.

Delaney, A., Ward, H., & Cameron, M. (2005). The history and development of speed camera use.

Report 242. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Delaney, A., Ward, H., Cameron, M., & Williams, A.F. (2004). Controversies and speed cameras: les-

sons learnt internationally. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Department for Transport. (2002). A cost recovery system for traffic safety cameras—first year report.

London: Department for Transport.

Diamantopoulou, K. & Corben, B. (1998). The impact of speed camera technology on speed limit

compliance in multi-lane tunnels. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Polic-

ing and Education Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Donnelly, T. (2003). Application of system engineering techniques to optimize benefits of fixed speed

cameras. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con-

ference, Sydney, Australia.

Dunn, P. (1998). Managing a photo radar program in the Scottsdale City Court. Williamsburg, Virginia:

National Center for State Courts.

Fields, M. (2001). Statement before the California Legislature Senate Committee on Privacy - auto-

mated enforcement laws. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Fontaine, M.D., Schrock, S.D., & Ullman, G. (2002). Feasibility of real-time remote speed enforcement

for work zones. Transportation Research Record 1818, 25-31.

Gains, A., Heydecker, B., Shrewsbury, J., & Robertson, S. (2004). The national safety camera pro-

gramme: Three year evaluation report. London: Department for Transport.

Gains, A., Humble, R., Heydecker, B., & Robertson, S. (2004). Safety performance of traffic manage-

ment at major motorway road works. London: Department for Transport.

Gains, A., Nordstrom, M., Heydecker, B., & Shrewsbury, J. (2005). The national safety camera pro-

gramme: Four year evaluation report. London: Department for Transport.

Heidstra, J., Goldbeld, C., Makinen, T., Nilsson, G., & Sagberg, F. (2000). New concepts in automatic

enforcement: Recommended applications in a European enforcement project. Deliverable 6, The

“Escape” Project. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT).

Helmer, J.R. (1997). San Jose's experience with residential photo speed enforcement. In ITE Com-

pendium of Technical Papers, Boston, MA.

Hess, S., & Polak, J. (2003). Effects of speed limit enforcement cameras on accident rates.

Transportation Research Record 1830, 25-33.

Highways Agency. (1997). West London speed camera demonstration project. London: Department

for Transport.

Hirst, W.M., Mountain, L.J., & Maher, M.J. (2005). Are speed enforcement cameras more effective that

other speed management measures? An evaluation of the relationship between speed and

accident reductions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 731-741.

Hooke, A., Knox, J., & Portas, A. (1996). Cost benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras.

London: Police Research Group.

A-2

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2006). Video: Automated Traffic Law Enforcement, Retrieved

June 5, 2007 from: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/speed.html

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2005). Speeding: Methods to deter violators stir controversy,

but officials need not cave in to the opposition. Status Report, 40, 8. Arlington, VA: Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2006, June). Automated enforcement laws. Retrieved August

15, 2006 from: http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/pdf/automated_enforcement.pdf

Kang, J.-G. (2002). Changes of speed and safety by automated speed enforcement systems. IATSS

Research, 26, 38-44.

Kang, J.-G., Hong, C.-E., & Oh, S. (1998). A study on the effect of automated speed enforcement

systems on traffic flow. In Proceedings of the 5th World Congress Conference on ITS,

Seoul, Korea.

Keenan, D. (2002). Speed cameras - measuring the impact on behavior. Traffic Engineering & Control,

43, 154-160.

Kraus, E. & Quiroga, C. (2003). Legislative issues related to automated enforcement of red light

running. In Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC.

Lynn, C.W., Ferguson, W.S., & Garber, N.J. (1992). Feasibility of photo-radar for traffic speed

enforcement in Virginia. Transportation Research Record 1375, 11-16.

Lynn, C., Lau, R, Garber, N.J., Alcee, J.V., Ferguson, W.S., Black, J.C., & Lienau, T.K. (1992). Final

report: Automated speed enforcement pilot project for the capital beltway: Feasibility of photo

radar. Charlottesville, Virginia: Virginia Transportation Research Council.

Maccubbin, R.P., Staples, B.L., & Salwin, A.E. (2001). Automated enforcement of traffic signals: A

literature review. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. (2001). Automated traffic law enforce-

ment model law. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.ncutlo.org/autoenforce622.htm

Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (2003). Evaluation of the crash effects of the Queensland speed cam-

era program. Report 204. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (2003). Evaluation of crash effects of the Queensland speed camera

program. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con-

ference, Sydney, Australia.

Newstead, S., Mullan, N., & Cameron, M. (1995). Evaluation of the speed camera program in Victoria

1990-1993. Phase 5: Further investigation of localized effects on casualty crash frequency. Report

78. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Nilsson, G. (2006). Automatic enforcement use and its issues across EU-countries. Working paper 6,

The “Escape” Project. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT).

Oesch, S.L. (2005). Statement before the Maryland House Environmental Matters Committee – HB

443 automated speed enforcement. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. (2003). Speed cameras: 10 criticisms and why

they are flawed. London: Department for Transport.

Polk, A.E. (n.d.) Automated enforcement of traffic laws: How to do it right and why you should care.

Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://152.99.129.29/its/cdrom/1043.pdf

Price, N.T., & Hunter-Zaworski, K.M. (1998). Evaluation of photo radar for the city of Portland,

Oregon. In Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Wash-

ington, DC.

A-3

Retting, R. (2002). Public opinion regarding speed cameras in the District of Columbia. Arlington, VA:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Retting, R.A., & Farmer, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in the District of Co-

lumbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37.

Rogers, C. (2005). Kent and Medway safety camera partnership: Operational case for financial year

2005-06 (year 4). Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership.

Rogerson, P., Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (1994). Evaluation of the speed camera program in

Victoria 1990-1991. Phase 3: Localized effects on casualty crashes and crash severity.

Phase 4: General effects on speed. Report 54. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident

Research Centre.

Sagberg, F. (2000). Automatic enforcement technologies and systems. Working paper 7, The “Es-

cape” Project. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT).

Savage, M. (2004). Automated traffic enforcement. NCSL Transportation Reviews. Washington, DC:

National Conference of State Legislators.

Speed cameras. (2004, May). Post note, no. 218. London: Parliamentary Office of Science

and Technology.

Stanek, T.M. (1998, winter). Photo radar in Arizona: Is it constitutional? Arizona State Law Journal,

1209-1243.

Stradling, S.G., Martin, L., & Campbell, M. (2005). Effects of speed cameras on driver attitude

and behavior. In G. Underwood (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 513-520).

Oxford: Elsevier.

Streff, F.M., & Molnar, L.J. (1995). Developing policies for automated speed enforcement: A survey of

Michigan opinions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27, 4, 611-616.

Stuster, J., Coffman, Z., & Warren, D. (1998). Synthesis of safety research related to speed and speed

management. FHWA-RD-98-154. U.S. Department of Transportation: FHWA-NHTSA Speed

Management Team.

Swali, L. (1993). The effect of speed cameras in West London. In Traffic Management and Road

Safety: Proceedings of a PTRC Seminar at Manchester University. PTRC Education and Re-

search Services Ltd.

Tae-Jun, H.A., Jeong-Gyu, K., & Je-Jin, P. (2003). The effects of automated speed enforcement sys-

tems on traffic-flow characteristics and accidents in Korea. ITE Journal, 73, 2.

Tay, R. (2000). Do speed cameras improve road safety? In Traffic and Transportation Studies: Inter-

national Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies (pp. 44-57). Beijing, China.

Turner, S., & Polk, A. (1998, June). Overview of automated enforcement in transportation. ITE

Journal, 20-29.

Walsh, D. (2003). Public perceptions of fixed digital speed cameras in New South Wales. In Proceed-

ings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Sydney, Aus-

tralia.

Ward, H. (2004). Safety cameras in Great Britain - The continuing debate. In Proceedings of the Aus-

tralasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Perth, Australia.

Willis, D.K. (2006). Speed cameras: An effectiveness and a policy review. College Station, TX: Texas

Transportation Institute.

Wilson, C., Willis, C., Hendrikz, J.K., & Bellamy, N. (2006). Speed enforcement detection devices for

preventing road traffic injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006

A-4

A-5

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ASE PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

The first substantial demonstrations of automated speed enforcement technologies occurred in the

1980s. Since then, the technologies have become more advanced and programs have been imple-

mented in dozens of countries around the world. In the United States, about 20 jurisdictions are cur-

rently using ASE and some other jurisdictions are planning to implement programs of their own. Table

B-1 shows the U.S. jurisdictions where ASE is currently being used. The table shows that ASE has

been used in locations ranging in size from small towns to large cities.

Table B-1. Selected U.S. jurisdictions with active ASE programs (as of February 2007)

Jurisdiction

Population

(year 2000)*

Land area

(mi2)

Program

start

ID type

Fixed or

mobile

Mesa, AZ

448,000

125

1996

Driver

Both

Paradise Valley, AZ

14,000

16

1987

Driver

Both

Pinal County, AZ

271,059

5,3704

2007

Driver

Both

Phoenix, AZ

1,321,000

475

2001

Driver

Mobile

Prescott Valley, AZ

33,068

32

??

Driver

??

Scottsdale, AZ

203,000

184

1996

Driver

Both

Tempe, AZ

159,000

40

1997

Driver

Mobile

San Jose, CA

895,000

175

1997

Driver

Mobile

Boulder, CO

95,000

24

1998

Driver

Mobile

Denver, CO

555,000

153

1998

Driver

Mobile

Fort Collins, CO

119,000

47

1996

Driver

Mobile

Washington, DC

572,000

61

2001

Vehicle

Both

Chicago State Police District, IL**

5,377,000

946

2006

Driver

Mobile

Davenport, IA

98,000

63

2006

Vehicle

Both

Montgomery County, MD

922,000

496

2007

Vehicle

Both

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC***

827,445

526.28

2003

Vehicle

Both

Albuquerque, NM

471,856

181

2004

Driver

Both

Akron, OH

217,000

62

2005

Vehicle

Mobile

Cleveland, OH

478,000

78

2006

Vehicle

Both

Northwood, OH

5,000

8

2005

Vehicle

Both

Toledo, OH

314,000

81

2004

Vehicle

Both

Trotwood, OH

27,000

31

2005

Vehicle

Fixed

Beaverton, OR

76,000

16

1996

Driver

Mobile

Medford, OR

63,000

22

2002

Driver

Mobile

Jackson, TN

62,099

49

?

Portland, OR

529,000

134

1996

Driver

Mobile

*Census estimate to nearest 1,000 population

**District encompasses Cook County, IL; ASE is conducted only on interstate highways

*** The population and land area is for Mecklenburg County – The program is currently suspended due to a

legal challenge

ASE was first implemented in the United States in the late 1980s with mixed success. The program

established in Paradise Valley, Arizona, in 1987 is still running today with strong public support. How-

ever, a number of other programs established in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not last. ASE

programs have been discontinued for a variety of reasons, including negative public opinion, inability

to demonstrate positive safety effects, incompatibility with existing laws or regulations, lack of support

from judges or elected officials, dissatisfaction with the equipment vendor, excessive administrative

burden, and unanticipated program expenses.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s a number of new ASE programs were established in the United

States and most of them are still active. Although State laws regulate many aspects of ASE opera-

tions, most jurisdictions by and large have the freedom to decide how their program will be run. This

has led to great diversity in the way that ASE programs are run in the United States.

A-6

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS

Many of the jurisdictions that have implemented ASE in the United States are small- to medium-size

cities that have experienced rapid increases in traffic volumes and crashes. This was the case in the

Phoenix metropolitan area where surrounding cities including Scottsdale and Paradise Valley were

seeing their police forces overwhelmed by traffic duties to the detriment of other responsibilities.

When traditional enforcement failed to bring the problem under control, they sought other solutions

and saw potential in ASE. Other jurisdictions have not had such specific challenges, but nonetheless

saw ASE as a tool that could improve safety and free police resources without excessive costs.

All ASE programs require the cooperation of multiple agencies and groups. Local and State govern-

ment bodies often must provide initial approval for ASE to be conducted. Police departments are typi-

cally responsible for the daily enforcement operations and the strategic planning of operations, though

daily operations in some jurisdictions, including San Jose and Boulder, are managed by department of

transportation or public works staff. The vendor provides equipment and services vital to the ASE pro-

gram. A supportive judiciary is critical to ensure that ASE citations will be upheld as legal and valid.

ASE programs must start with a sound legal basis if they are to be stable and successful. Not all pro-

grams require the passage of specific enabling legislation. Many States and jurisdictions were able to

initiate ASE programs in accordance with preexisting laws enacted to permit the use of red light cam-

eras. Some States initially passed legislation to allow a temporary ASE demonstration project. Legis-

lators could then decide whether or not to support the continuation of ASE based on demonstrated

results. Oregon, North Carolina, Boulder, and Akron introduced ASE with demonstration projects and

the use of freeway ASE in Scottsdale also was approved as a demonstration project.

CONTRACT ISSUES

There are three basic options for a jurisdiction to acquire ASE equipment and services from a vendor:

(1) purchase equipment, (2) lease equipment, and (3) use equipment at no cost in exchange for a

share of revenues. There are countless possible variations on these basic options and each jurisdic-

tion has a unique arrangement worked out between program managers and vendor representatives to

meet the needs of the jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions pay a contractually obligated recurring fee in ad-

dition to some compensation based on the number of citations processed by the vendor. Scottsdale

pays its vendor a monthly rental fee for ASE equipment plus a fee for each successfully disposed cita-

tion. Successful dispositions include paid citations, completion of an accredited defensive driving

class, or defendant failure to pay or appear in court and being found in default by a hearing examiner.

Washington, DC, pays its vendor a set monthly fee for equipment and services. A previous contract

with the same vendor entitled the vendor to a set monthly fee plus additional fees if monthly citation

volume exceeded a predetermined threshold. Program managers negotiated to eliminate citation vol-

ume fees in the most recent contract because citation volume had become more stable and predict-

able. Charlotte pays its vendor on a per-citation basis, with the majority of citation revenue going to

the vendor and the remainder used to cover program expenses. Akron, during its demonstration

phase, pays a portion of each citation to the vendor, and does not pay any recurring lease fees. San

Jose and Paradise Valley purchased their equipment from the vendor.

A-7

FIELD OPERATIONS

Site Selection

Most jurisdictions restrict ASE to particular types of roads. ASE is used in Akron and Phoenix only to

enforce school zones. San Jose only enforces residential neighborhoods. Colorado law limits en-

forcement to residential neighborhoods, school zones, park areas, and construction zones with aver-

age daily traffic between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles and speed limits of 35 mph or less. Beaverton

distributes 45 percent of its enforcement time to major arterials, 35 percent to school zones, and 20

percent to residential neighborhoods, in compliance with a city law designed to distribute enforcement

in proportion to the locations where speeding problems are deemed most serious. Charlotte focuses

enforcement on high speed corridors with histories of high crash rates. Scottsdale and Washington,

DC, can enforce any location where speeding is considered problematic. These are the only two ju-

risdictions in the United States that currently conduct ASE on freeways. Oregon law specifically pro-

hibits use of ASE on freeways.

The criteria for ASE site selection also vary between jurisdictions. In San Jose, the City Department of

Transportation only conducts ASE at locations where (1) a majority of local residents approve of ASE

at that location and (2) a speed survey conducted by the DOT finds that speeds are excessive. Resi-

dent approval is determined by petition signatures or approval by a neighborhood association. In

Scottsdale, sites are selected by reviewing volume and crash data, speed surveys, and feedback from

citizens and police officers. All potential ASE sites first undergo an engineering study to determine if

speeds are excessive and if countermeasures other than ASE are appropriate and feasible. Scotts-

dale’s contract specifies that the equipment vendor must not have input in site selection. Portland se-

lects sites where vehicle speeds are substantially above the speed limit and where citizens have ex-

pressed concerns about speeding. All potential sites undergo an engineering study before approval.

More than 300 sites in Portland have been approved for ASE, but many sites are not used because

speeding is no longer a substantial problem at those locations. Beaverton selects sites based on

presence of a speeding problem (at least 6% of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10

mph), assessed crash risk, mixed use of roadway, and the presence of construction. Paradise Valley

site selection is primarily based upon crash history and citizen complaints. The police traffic officers

have a monthly meeting to review statistics and identify locations that could benefit from ASE. Site

selection in Tempe is based upon crash data provided by the city traffic engineer, citizen complaints,

and traffic officer input. Special consideration is given to school zones. In Charlotte, ASE is con-

ducted at locations on 14 corridors where speed-related crashes were known to be a serious problem

before ASE began. Washington, DC, police choose sites that are known to have speeding problems

and high crash rates. They also consider citizen complaints and proximity to school zones. In Boulder,

ASE is used where speed violations occur too frequently for a police officer to cite most of them while

conducting traditional enforcement. An engineering study is conducted for each site before it is ap-

proved for ASE.

Mobile Units

The primary method of enforcement in most jurisdictions is a mobile ASE configuration that can be

transported to numerous locations. All of the jurisdictions that use mobile ASE have between one and

five units, with the exception of Washington, DC, which has 12 mobile units. The majority of jurisdic-

tions use a van or other vehicle equipped with the suite of speed monitoring and photographic equip-

ment. This setup allows all equipment to be easily transported and provides a safe and comfortable

environment for the equipment operator. In Akron, the mobile ASE equipment is transported in a vehi-

cle, but is operated from tripods located on the roadside. ASE equipment can also be operated from

tripods in Washington, DC. In Steubenville, the mobile ASE equipment is contained in a weatherproof

housing that can be secured to a pole and left to operate without human oversight.

Most mobile units operate overtly, with clearly marked vehicles, advance signage, or both. Operators

in North Carolina, Oregon, Paradise Valley, Boulder, and Akron are required to place temporary signs

upstream of the enforcement unit that state the speed limit and warn of speed enforcement ahead. In

North Carolina, the sign must be placed within 1,000 feet of the unit. In Oregon, the sign must be

placed between 300 and 1,200 feet of the enforcement unit. In Arizona, ARS 28-654 defines signage

requirements for fixed and mobile ASE systems. Permanent signage is also used in many jurisdic-

tions. In San Jose, signage is located at entrances to neighborhoods and on enforced streets. Wash-

ington, DC, does not require signage immediately upstream of an enforced site, but does have signs

throughout the city that state that traffic laws are photo enforced. Oregon State law requires ASE noti-

fication signs on all major highway entrances to jurisdictions where ASE is used. In Charlotte, sup-

plementary plaques that state “Photo Enforced” were placed below every speed limit sign on ASE-

enforced corridors. Figure B-1 shows the temporary advance signage and supplementary plaque

used in Charlotte and Figure B-2 shows a fixed advance sign in Boulder.

A-8

Figure B-1. Temporary ASE warning sign (left)

and supplementary speed limit plaque (right) used in Charlotte, NC

Figure B-2. Fixed advance sign in Boulder, CO

Most mobile ASE vehicles are marked to indicate that they are enforcement vehicles. The van in

Northwood, Ohio, has a speed limit sign on the back with an additional plaque that states “SPEED

ENFORCED.” In Oregon, enforcement vehicles are required by law to have a speed display board on

or near the enforcement unit that displays violators’ speeds as they approach the vehicle. One of

Portland’s ASE vans is shown in Figure B-3. Mobile units in Charlotte and San Jose are marked on

the sides, but not on the rear. Paradise Valley’s mobile units are inconspicuously marked. In Boulder

and Washington, DC, unmarked police vehicles are used to conduct enforcement.

Figure B-3. Mobile ASE van in Portland, OR

A-9

In most jurisdictions, trained operators are required to monitor the mobile ASE system while it is in

use. In addition to ensuring proper setup and operation of the equipment, operators are required to

maintain event logs in most jurisdictions. Event logs are typically used to record information about the

session (e.g., specific location, direction of traffic observed, start time, weather conditions, etc.) and

information about specific violations (e.g., visual confirmation of violation, vehicle description, pres-

ence of emergency vehicles). Log information can be used as supplementary evidence during citation

processing and adjudication.

The affiliation of van operators also differs between jurisdictions. Oregon requires that police officers

operate mobile units. Portland uses sworn officers and Beaverton uses special reserve officers.

Washington, DC, and Charlotte also use sworn police officers. Operators in San Jose are City De-

partment of Transportation employees. Operators in Tempe and Boulder are police employee’s

equivalent to parking enforcement staff. Operators in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley are employees

of the equipment vendor, Redflex.

Mobile unit operators follow a variety of procedures in different jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions operate

ASE either Monday through Saturday or seven days per week. Jurisdictions that only enforce school

zones during school hours operate only on days when schools are in session. The first shift of the day

starts in most jurisdictions between 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. Most programs end mobile enforcement in

the evening, between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m., though Scottsdale can conduct mobile enforcement 24

hours per day. Oregon law states that enforcement cannot be conducted at one location for more

than 4 hours per day. Tempe also conducts enforcement in 4-hour shifts. In Washington, DC, shifts

can be as long as 8 hours.

Fixed Units

Fixed ASE units that can conduct speed enforcement up to 24 hours per day without human supervi-

sion have been used for many years in Europe and Australia, but now are becoming increasingly

common in the United States. Pole-mounted fixed units are used in Scottsdale; Paradise Valley;

Washington, DC; Trotwood; Northwood; Cleveland; and Toledo. Washington, DC, has 10 fixed units

located at mid-block locations on city streets. Scottsdale has a pair of midblock units to enforce both

directions of an arterial road as well as 9 intersection cameras that conduct ASE and red light camera

enforcement simultaneously. These combination units, sometimes called ‘speed-on-green’ red light

cameras, are becoming popular among jurisdictions using ASE. Paradise Valley has 3 combination

units, Toledo has 6, and Cleveland and Trotwood have 2 each. If a driver is photographed speeding

through an intersection while the light is red, the driver will be cited for both violations in Paradise Val-

ley, Scottsdale, Trotwood, and Northwood, but only for one of the violations in Toledo and Cleveland.

Program managers in Washington, DC, and Mesa are considering adding ASE capability to some of

their red light camera intersections.

Enforcement Speed Threshold

Nearly all jurisdictions use a speed threshold of 10 or 11 mph or more above the speed limit to record

a violation. However, many of the jurisdictions that enforce school zones have a speed threshold of

about 6 mph or more above the speed limit. Trotwood has a 16 mph threshold for its fixed camera

monitoring an intersection on a State highway with a 50 mph speed limit. This threshold was selected

because a substantial number of vehicles were traveling at least 16 mph above the speed limit before

enforcement began.

Violation Types and Penalties

Some jurisdictions require that the driver of a speeding vehicle be identified while other jurisdictions

only require that the vehicle be identified. Often this decision is driven by State legislation. For in-

stance, Colorado, Oregon, and Arizona laws require driver identification, while Ohio, North Carolina,

and Washington, DC, laws do not. In most jurisdictions where drivers are identified, penalties are

consistent with the penalties assessed through traditional speed enforcement and include a fine and

license sanctions. Colorado is an exception, where driver identification is required, but only civil penal-

ties are assessed. In jurisdictions where only the vehicle is identified, violations are considered civil

violations and penalties are limited to fines. Fines for ASE violations are the same as those for moving

violations in Washington, DC, but Colorado, Charlotte, and all jurisdictions in Ohio with the exception

of Cleveland and Northwood assess flat fines for all ASE violations, though fines may be higher in

school zones. In Northwood, all speeding fines assessed by fixed units are $90, but fines assessed by

the mobile unit range from $80 for up to 10 mph above the speed limit to $145 for up to 35 mph above

the limit. The fines assessed by the mobile unit are consistent with those issued by a police officer

during a traffic stop. No jurisdiction raises fines for repeat offenses.

Detection Technologies

The majority of jurisdictions use radar in their mobile units to detect vehicle speeds, but Charlotte uses

lidar and Akron use scanning lidar. Scanning lidar rapidly scans a beam horizontally across the road-

way, allowing the system to monitor speeds in multiple lanes and in both directions of travel. The ma-

jority of fixed ASE units measure vehicle speed as a function of the time required for vehicles to pass

over two piezo sensors embedded in the pavement. In Washington, DC, fixed units measure speed

using pole-mounted radar.

Image Capture

ASE units in all jurisdictions take at least one still photo of the rear of a vehicle and jurisdictions that

require driver identification also take at least one photo of the front of a vehicle. The rear photograph

must show the vehicle on the road and include a legible depiction of the vehicle’s rear license plate.

Most mobile units take one rear photograph, but many fixed ASE units, including those in Washington,

DC, take two photographs when a violation is detected; the photos show the distance that the alleged

violator traveled over a short period of time, which can be used as an additional verification of the re-

corded speed. In jurisdictions where driver identification is required, ASE units also photograph the

front of the vehicle. The front photograph must include the driver’s face and might also include the

front license plate.

Separate cameras are required to photograph the front and the rear of a vehicle. For mobile units, the

most common arrangement is to have both cameras located in the same location, typically inside the

mobile vehicle, with one camera aimed at approaching traffic and one camera aimed at receding traf-

fic. When a violation is detected, the camera aimed at approaching traffic records a photograph of the

front of the vehicle. When the vehicle passes the ASE unit, a second detection device (e.g., radar)

triggers the second camera to take the photo of the rear of the vehicle. A less common approach has

the two cameras separated by a distance and the cameras’ fields of view converge to allow the front

and rear photographs to be taken simultaneously. Although this approach does not require a second

detection device to trigger the second camera, it does require at least one camera to be located re-

motely away from the mobile ASE unit and more effort might be required to ensure that the remote

camera is properly aimed. With fixed ASE units, however, front and rear photographs are taken simul-

A-10

taneously, or almost simultaneously, by cameras separated by some distance, because the difficulty of

setting up remote cameras is minimal in a fixed unit.

Currently, about half of jurisdictions are using digital photography for some or all of their ASE units,

and some of the jurisdictions currently using wet film are considering switching to digital cameras.

Digital photography is advantageous because of the ease of transmission and reproduction, but not all

program managers are convinced that the current digital technology yields images of sufficient quality

for driver identification.

Most jurisdictions report a success rate of 60 to 80 percent in capturing photographs of sufficient qual-

ity to issue a notice of violation. Precipitation and dark conditions decrease the likelihood that photos

will be adequate. Operator error has also resulted in insufficient photographic evidence in many juris-

dictions. During the first weeks of Scottsdale’s freeway ASE demonstration, the challenges of captur-

ing photos across up to three lanes of dense traffic contributed to inadequate photographs for about

half of recorded violations.

In addition to still images, some jurisdictions capture digital video of violations. Fixed units capture

video clips of red light and speed violations in Toledo and Northwood. Scottsdale has this capability

on all of its fixed units and is testing the use of digital video capture in mobile enforcement units.

Video clips supplement, rather than replace, still photos. In Scottsdale, an alleged violator can view a

12-second video of the violation online.

A-11

VIOLATION REVIEW

Review Process

The basic steps of the review process are similar across jurisdictions:

1. Review violation record to determine if a violation took place.

2. If the violation is valid, use the vehicle’s license plate to retrieve the registration and driver’s

license information from motor vehicle records.

3. If registration information matches violation information (including driver appearance, if

driver identification is required), send a violation notice or citation to the registered owner of

the vehicle.

Additional processes may be required if the vehicle photographed is registered to a business or gov-

ernment agency, or if the driver of the vehicle does not match the description of the registered owner.

In such cases, many jurisdictions send a violation notice to the registered owner requesting that the

owner identify the driver. Some jurisdictions hold the registered owner responsible for the violation if

he/she does not identify the driver or provides invalid information.

In almost all jurisdictions, the violation review process is conducted by vendor staff with the guidance

and oversight of police staff. Vendor staff is usually the first to view violation data. If they determine

that a violation is valid, they send the vehicle’s license plate information to the State department of

motor vehicles, which provides the name and address of the vehicle’s registered owner along with ve-

hicle descriptors. At this point, a second check is usually made to ensure that the vehicle records

match the information seen in the violation photograph and ASE operator log. This second check

might be conducted by the vendor or the police agency. It is typically the role of the police to maintain

the quality of the review process and to ensure that the vendor staff follows all jurisdiction regulations.

In most jurisdictions, police staff must review and approve all citations before they can be mailed to

recipients. However, in some jurisdictions, including Scottsdale and Charlotte, only a fraction of re-

corded violations are spot-checked by police, though Scottsdale began using a full police review and

approval process in July 2007.

Driver Identification versus Vehicle Identification

All United States jurisdictions follow the basic process described above, but there are some differ-

ences in the details of how the process is performed. For instance, there are additional requirements

if driver identification is required. Most jurisdictions that require driver identification perform a gender

match, in which reviewers determine whether the gender of the vehicle’s registered owner matches

the gender of the observed driver in the violation photo. If there is a gender mismatch, the violation is

dismissed or a violation notice is sent requesting that the recipient identify the driver at the time of the

violation, though no jurisdiction that performs a gender match penalizes registered owners for failing to

implicate another driver. Most jurisdictions that perform a gender match report that about 20 percent

of photographed drivers do not match the gender of a registered owner of the vehicle.

In jurisdictions where driver identification is not required, the registered owner of the vehicle is held

responsible unless he/she successfully challenges the citation in a hearing or submits a form to certify

that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. In Washington, DC, citation recipients must

provide the name, address, and driver’s license number of the actual driver of the vehicle along with

the certification of innocence.

A-12

CITATION AND ADJUDICATION PROCESSES

In most jurisdictions, the first notice mailed to the alleged violator is a citation. The citation includes

information about the violation, including date, time, location, speed limit, vehicle’s recorded speed,

and so forth. Most jurisdictions provide at least one still photo of the vehicle at the time of the viola-

tion. In jurisdictions where facial identification is required, there are often separate photos to show the

vehicle and the driver’s face. Most jurisdictions include at least one photo with the citation, but Para-

dise Valley and San Jose require recipients to come to a court building if they choose to view the pho-

tos. Portland sends reduced-quality black and white reproductions of violation photos to recipients.

Recipients can view the original photos at a court building.

Not all jurisdictions mail a citation as the first notice to the alleged violator. San Jose and all

programs in Colorado first send a courtesy letter that informs the recipient that his/her vehicle was ob-

served speeding. The letter recipient has the option to take responsibility or identify the actual driver.

The citation is sent to the driver that the recipient identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of

the violation.

The amount of time from when the violation occurs to when the notice is mailed to the recipient varies

between jurisdictions. Oregon law specifies that notices must be mailed out within six days of the vio-

lation. Scottsdale originally required that notices be sent out within 30 days of the violation, but be-

cause of improved procedures currently requires that notices be mailed out within 14 days of the viola-

tion. In Tempe, citations are often sent about four weeks after the violation due to procedural ineffi-

ciencies. Scottsdale and Washington, DC, also allow citation recipients secure online access to their

citations, and other jurisdictions are considering options for online citation access.

Options for Recipient of Violation Notice

In all jurisdictions, notice recipients have at least three options: (1) pay the fine, (2) certify that some-

one else was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, or (3) request a hearing to challenge the

citation. Fines can usually be paid by mail or in person at a government building. Some jurisdictions,

including Scottsdale, Beaverton, and Washington, DC, provide an online payment method. All jurisdic-

tions provide a form that citation recipients can fill out to certify innocence. In jurisdictions that require

driver identification, recipients typically must mail a photocopy of their driver’s license to prove that

they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. Some jurisdictions request that the

recipient identify the actual driver of the vehicle, while others simply dismiss the citation if the driver’s

license photo does not match the photo of the driver at the time of the violation. In jurisdictions that do

not require driver identification, recipients may be required to identify someone else as the driver at the

time of the violation. A driving safety class is another option in some jurisdictions. Successful comple-

tion of a driving class allows a citation recipient to avoid having license points assessed in Medford

and Scottsdale.

In all U.S. jurisdictions that use ASE, citation recipients have a right to a hearing to contest their cita-

tions. The person who presides over the hearing may be a judge, magistrate, or civilian adjudicator,

depending upon State law and type of violation (civil or criminal). Typically, there are three individuals

at the hearing: the adjudicator, the defendant, and a witness for the prosecution. In most jurisdictions,

the witness for the prosecution of a citation issued by a mobile unit is the person who was operating

the unit at the time of the violation. If the violation was recorded by an unmanned unit, an expert wit-

ness is generally provided by the vendor or the agency that manages the program (e.g., police or de-

partment of transportation). The prosecution witness is present to attest to the validity of the citation

and the integrity of the ASE process. If available, the information logged by the mobile unit at the time

of the violation may also be used to support the prosecution. In Scottsdale, an ASE expert is provided

by the vendor for all ASE hearings. The expert also submits as evidence photographs of the location

where the violation occurred and a histogram of recorded speeds at the site to show that the defen-

dant was traveling in excess of a reasonable and prudent speed.

If a recipient fails to respond to a notice by the due date, typically between two and four weeks after

citation issuance, reminder notices are sent in most jurisdictions. Washington, DC, and Charlotte also

assess late fees if fines are not paid by the due date. If there is no response after multiple notices are

delivered, many jurisdictions turn the case over to a collection agency or a peace officer who conducts

personal service at the expense of the citation recipient. In some jurisdictions, failure to respond to a

citation can result in a default guilty judgment, inability to reregister the vehicle, or loss of driver’s li-

cense. However, in Mesa and in all jurisdictions in Colorado (by State law), the citation must be dis-

missed if the debt collector cannot complete personal service.

Procedures for Government and Business Vehicles

Government vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles, buses, agency vehicles) and business vehicles (e.g.,

commercial trucks, rental cars) pose a special challenge for an ASE program. Emergency vehicles

such as police cruisers, ambulances, or fire trucks may be permitted to speed if responding to an

emergency. Other official and business vehicles are rarely driven by their registered owners. Many

jurisdictions have special procedures in place to ensure that the drivers of these vehicles are held re-

sponsible for unauthorized speeding. For example, in Oregon and Colorado, registered owners of

business vehicles are provided with a form to identify the person who was driving at the time of the

violation. In Colorado, emergency vehicle drivers are held responsible for citations unless dispatch

logs indicate that the driver was responding to an emergency. Drivers of government vehicles also

face agency discipline for speeding violations while using an official vehicle.

A-13

EVALUATIONS OF ASE

There have been few formal, comprehensive evaluations of the safety effects of ASE programs in the

United States. Those that have been conducted are often limited in their validity due to incomplete or

misrepresentative reporting of methods and data, confounding variables, lack of statistical rigor, and a

lack of suitable comparison (control) data. Formal evaluations are often conducted within six months

to a year of the beginning of the ASE program, but follow-up evaluations are rarely conducted to inves-

tigate longer-term effects and the effects of changes in enforcement operations. Furthermore, sub-

stantial differences between jurisdictions, their practices, and their evaluation methods preclude the

ability to make meaningful comparisons between the observed effects of ASE in different jurisdictions.

Despite the limitations of the evaluation methods and the need for caution when interpreting results,

ASE has generally been associated with positive safety effects in the communities that have evaluated

their programs. Some of the most substantial evaluations of ASE in the United States are reviewed

below.

PORTLAND, OR AND BEAVERTON, OR

Oregon Senate Bill 382, which passed in 1995, authorized a two-year demonstration of ASE and

mandated an evaluation of the program (Cities of Beaverton and Portland, 1997). Both cities collected

speed data before and after the ASE program began at enforced sites and at control sites. In Port-

land, one photo radar van enforced 11 sites on residential streets and school zones. The first five

months of data showed that there was no speed reduction due to ASE, so enforcement was focused

on just five of the 11 streets for the remainder of the evaluation. During the four months of focused

enforcement, the proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased

from 18 percent to 13 percent. A slight increase in speeding was observed during the same time pe-

riod at control sites.

Beaverton recorded vehicle speeds on 8 residential streets and 8 school zone streets before and after

ASE began. Half of the sites were enforced sites and half were control sites. Vehicle speeds were

recorded three months prior to ASE and again in the second month of enforcement. The proportion of

vehicles traveling more than 5 mph above the speed limit decreased from 19 percent to 13 percent at

enforced sites. A slight increase in speeding was observed during the same time period at control sites.

The project team also evaluated public awareness and acceptance of ASE. Approximately eight

months after ASE began, 85 percent of Beaverton residents and 88 percent of Portland residents were

aware of the demonstration project. Public approval was more widespread eight months after the pro-

gram began than it was four months before it began. Over this time span, the percentage of residents

who approved of photo radar in school zones increased from 81 percent to 88 percent in Beaverton,

and 82 percent to 89 percent in Portland. Approval for photo radar use in residential neighborhoods

increased from 68 percent to 78 percent in Beaverton, and 69 percent to 74 percent in Portland.

A-14

WASHINGTON, DC

An evaluation of the program in Washington, DC, compared vehicle speeds at seven ASE sites with

speeds at eight loosely matched control sites in Baltimore, Maryland, where ASE was not conducted

(Retting & Farmer, 2003). Speed data were collected in both cities one year before enforcement be-

gan and six months after enforcement began. Relative to the control sites, enforced sites experienced

an 82-percent decrease in the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph

and a 14-percent decrease in mean speeds. However, the speed effects were recorded by ASE units

during enforcement hours, so it is likely that speed reductions would have been less substantial if

speeds were recorded without the presence of enforcement. This study does not address the effects

of ASE on crash rates, but data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) do not suggest a

reduction in traffic fatalities attributed to speeding since the beginning of ASE in Washington, DC, (see

Table B-2). A 2003 telephone survey found that about 50 percent of Washington, DC, resi

proved of the ASE program and 36 percent disapproved (Retting, 2003).

dents ap-

Table B-2. Traffic fatalities in Washington, DC, 2000 through 2004

Number of traffic

fatalities involved in

speed-related

crashes

Total

number of

traffic fa-

talities

Percent of fatal

crashes that

were speed-

related

Traffic fatalities

per 100 million

vehicle miles

traveled

2005

17

48

35%

-

2004

20

43

44%

1.15

2003

22

67

30%

1.87

2002

17

47

36%

1.33

2001*

19

68

28%

1.81

2000

21

48

42%

1.37

*Enforcement began in September, 2001

CHARLOTTE, NC

The North Carolina Governor’s Highway Safety Program mandated an evaluation of Charlotte’s ASE

demonstration project, which began operating in August 2004 (Cunningham, Hummer, & Moon, 2005).

Speed data was collected at 14 enforcement sites on corridors known for frequent crashes and at 11

comparison sites. Data was collected about 10 months before ASE and about three months after the

start of ASE. The proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased

55 percent at enforced sites, relative to control sites. Mean speeds and 85th percentile speeds de-

creased by less than 1 mph at enforced sites, relative to control sites. The authors report an esti-

mated crash reduction of about 12 percent at enforced sites compared to expectations based upon

crash statistics from 2000 through 2003. Although this study is among the most statistically rigorous

A-15

evaluations of ASE to date, there are some limitations. The authors note that the short duration of the

data collection during the enforcement period and the intense media focus on ASE might have influ-

enced results. The authors also failed to account for the downward trend in crashes per million vehicle

miles traveled in Charlotte, which may have led to an overestimation of the crash reduction attributed

to ASE. The enforced sites and the control sites were also inadequately matched; on average, en-

forced sites experienced substantially higher crash rates than the control sites during the five years

preceding ASE. This difference indicates that the enforced sites might have been more susceptible

than the control sites to the effects of regression to the mean. The researchers also conducted focus

groups with representatives from neighborhood associations, traffic engineers, and police officers.

Attitudes toward ASE were generally positive, but all participants had a preexisting interest in ASE and

therefore did not represent the population of Charlotte.

SCOTTSDALE, AZ

An independent evaluation of ASE was conducted on the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona

(Washington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). A total of six fixed cameras operated on a 6.5-mile sec-

tion of freeway with a 65 mph speed limit, with three cameras operating in each direction of travel.

Preliminary findings indicate that the ASE units led to a mean speed reduction of more than 9 mph,

from 73.5 mph to 64.2 mph during off-peak travel hours, a 50-percent reduction in crashes, and a 40-

percent reduction in crash-related injuries. Although rear-end crashes actually increased, there was

little or no increase in injuries associated with these crashes. The relatively small sample of crashes

may limit the reliability of these preliminary findings. The study authors estimate the annual economic

benefits of the freeway ASE program at $1.4 to $10.6 million. When enforcement was suspended at

the end of the demonstration period, the rate of speeding violation detection (greater than 76 mph)

increased by 836 percent.

REFERENCES

Cities of Beaverton and Portland (1997). Photo radar demonstration project evaluation. Prepared for

The Oregon Department of Transportation.

Cunningham, C.M., Hummer, J.E., & Moon, J.-P. (2005). An evaluation of the safety effects of speed

enforcement cameras in Charlotte, NC. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Transportation Research and

Education, North Carolina State University.

Retting, R.A. (2003). Speed cameras - Public perceptions in the US. Traffic Engineering and Control,

44, 100-101.

Retting, R.A., & Farmer, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in the District of Co-

lumbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37.

Washington, S., Shin, K., & Van Shalkwyk, I. (2007). Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101

photo enforcement demonstration program. Draft summary report. Phoenix, AZ: The Arizona De-

partment of Transportation.

APPENDIX C. PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

NOTICE:

A-16

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration have

compiled and distributed this information as a legal guide only. This material is not intended to be a

complete treatment of every jurisdiction’s laws and court decisions related to photo red light enforce-

ment. Instead, this material includes highlights and examples of court decisions, and discusses issues

that users engaged in photo red light enforcement should consider.

Due to the dynamic nature of law enforcement and the evolution of technology, it is important that

each department review this information to verify that it is consistent with applicable, current State and

local law and regulations, and with department policy and procedure. This information is NOT in-

tended to substitute for the advice of legal counsel. You should speak with your legal advisor,

and/or local prosecutor, about the sufficiency of your department’s manual, policy, curriculum, and

training program on this subject. This material should not be used as the sole basis for compliance

with any law or regulation, and departments should NOT rely on this material as a legal defense in

any civil or criminal action. Remember that new court decisions and amendments to the law could

change the material in this appendix.

Photo red light enforcement is a relatively new law enforcement tool. Thus, case law is not well estab-

lished. Although the few cases involving photo red light raised constitutional issues, the decisions were

based upon procedural grounds, never answering the ultimate question – is it constitutional? The rul-

ing on the motion to dismiss citations issued under San Diego, California’s photo red light program

(under appeal as of the preparation of this report), found the program constitutional. However, this rul-

ing is not binding and only provides insight into the court’s reasoning.

Automated speed enforcement, a relatively new enforcement tool as well, shares common legal

issues with photo red light enforcement – such as the registered owner presumption, notice, proce-

dural, constitutional issues, etc. Most automated speed cases have also tended to avoid constitutional

questions. Some issues (e.g., chain of custody, service of process issues, registered owner presump-

tion) have been addressed, but these decisions tend to be highly fact-dependent or are based on

State statutes.

Many questions remain. The answer to these questions may be gleaned from cases not specific to

automated enforcement. Existing case precedent dealing with evidentiary issues of older enforcement

techniques will shape the use of automated enforcement evidence in the future. Law enforcement will

use the same criminal procedures as are applicable to the collection (search and seizure), preserva-

tion (chain-of-custody), and discovery of other types of evidence.

It is most important to note that although the courts will borrow from established case law to determine