No cops needed: S.F. pushes bid for automated speed cameras

Victor Sanchez waits to cross Van Ness Avenue as drivers make their way along the major traffic artery in San Francisco, Calif., on Thursday, November 12, 2015. The city of San Francisco is considering installing new speed cameras on several major thoroughfares. less Victor Sanchez waits to cross Van Ness Avenue as drivers make their way along the major traffic artery in San Francisco, Calif., on Thursday, November 12, 2015. The city of San Francisco is considering ... more Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 4 Caption Close No cops needed: S.F. pushes bid for automated speed cameras 1 / 4 Back to Gallery

San Francisco officials who aim to eliminate fatal traffic collisions are pressing what would be a fundamental change on some streets — a network of automated cameras that would identify speeding drivers, snap their photos and mail them tickets.

The latest step in the bid to bust speeders without a cop having to spot them and pull them over is a report from the city controller’s office, released Thursday, that analyzed the use of the speed cameras in six large cities, including New York and Chicago, and deemed them successful.

Leaders of San Francisco’s Vision Zero campaign, which includes city departments and pedestrian and bike advocacy groups, say installing automated cameras is a top priority, and the report lays out what the city may need to do to sell the controversial idea to the public.

However, as the report notes, one big obstacle remains in the way: speed cameras are illegal in California, and it will take state legislation to allow San Francisco to start using them. Vision Zero backers haven’t found a lawmaker to introduce the necessary bill, but say they’re committed to pushing for the devices in 2016.

Tool for Vision Zero

“Unsafe speed is the No. 1 cause of serious injuries and deaths across the country and in San Francisco,” said Kate Breen, government affairs director for the Municipal Transportation Agency. “We need to build an understanding that we have a tool that we can’t currently use. There is a growing awareness at the citizen level that we need to change the way people think about our streets.”

Vision Zero was launched last year and seeks to eliminate all traffic deaths by 2024 using a combination of physical improvements including new traffic signals and high-visibility crosswalks, safety education programs and stepped-up enforcement. But the number of people killed in traffic collisions this year stands at 14 — the same as in 2014.

Reducing driving speeds has cut deaths and injuries in many of the 139 American cities where speed cameras are used, the Vision Zero coalition contends.

Backers cite a 70 percent drop in fatal collisions in Washington over a decade and a 31 percent drop in speeding vehicles in Chicago during the first year of that city’s program. In Scottsdale, Ariz., a nine-month camera pilot program achieved an 88 percent decline in vehicles driving 11 mph or more above the 65-mph limit.

The controller’s report looked at speed cameras in Chicago; Denver; New York; Portland, Ore.; Seattle; and Washington. It concluded the programs are “an effective tool to improve road safety.”

Purpose is not revenue

It also suggested that to win public — and legislative — support, proponents need to convince people that the purpose of the cameras is to improve safety, not to generate revenue. Interviews in downtown San Francisco on Thursday backed that up.

Scott Gordon, 28, a Lyft driver who lives in the city, said the cameras would be “just another way for the city to make more money.”

“I don’t know if that’s the solution,” he said. “Speeding’s not an issue. It’s crosswalks. From what I see, it’s poorly designed intersections. It’s people running red lights. It just seems like it’s another way to dish out tickets.”

Wedrell James II, 40, thought the cameras would be effective, but had misgivings.

“It would actually fix the problem if it was pervasive,” he said. “You would know that there was likely to be a penalty.”

Still, he said, he couldn’t support the idea because of the “Big Brother” fear of government monitoring.

AAA of Northern California is also skeptical of automated enforcement. Spokeswoman Cynthia Harris said in a statement that the organization believes enforcement by officers who can be seen is more “fair and reasonable.”

“Any consideration must be part of a comprehensive traffic safety strategy that incorporates engineering, education and officer enforcement,” she said.

In Portland, where a manned camera program using three vans is about to be supplemented with an unstaffed program, warning signs as well as electronic boards displaying vehicle speeds will be posted before drivers encounter speed cameras.

Not about speed traps

“It’s a good approach that’s resonated with the public,” said Dylan Rivera, a spokesman for the Portland Bureau of Transportation. “It’s not about speed traps, not about surprising anyone. It’s about education and speed reduction, and a reduction in fatalities.”

Nicole Ferrara, the executive director of Walk SF and a member of the Vision Zero Coalition, said speed cameras are critical to the safety campaign.

“Automated speed enforcement is the best tool we have to not only reduce speeds but deaths,” she said. “It’s pretty easy and quick and cost-effective to implement. Street design changes are effective, too, but they take a lot of time and they’re expensive — and you can’t do them on every street without turning S.F. into complete gridlock.”

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Kale Williams contributed to this report.

Michael Cabanatuan and Jenna Lyons are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. E-mail: mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com, jlyons@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @ctuan @JennaJourno