Comics might say that the real purpose of traffic cameras is to let cops spend more time in doughnut shops. Cynics might contend that the devices are mostly intended to boost traffic-fine revenue. But cameras that photograph the license plates of cars running red lights or speeding--resulting in a citation in the car owner's mailbox--are stirring up controversy as they become more common.

First rolled out in the 1960s, stoplight cameras went digital in the 1990s. Now, these cameras are in use in over 100 communities in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Cameras aimed at catching speeders, already common in Britain and other countries, are beginning to be deployed in the United States as well. The technology is pretty simple--just a fixed camera with a sensor and a connection to the traffic signal or a radar gun. But the problems they present are much more complicated.

Some people just don't like the idea of being watched. Being monitored and punished at the behest of a law-enforcement robot sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, and not an especially cheerful science fiction movie.

Others worry about safety. Red-light cameras are supposed to make us safer by discouraging people from running red lights. The trouble is that they work too well. Numerous studies have found that when these cameras are put in place, rear-end collisions increase dramatically. Drivers who once might have stretched the light a bit now slam on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, with predictable results. A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections.

Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in rear-end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall.

This problem can be aggravated by jurisdictions that shorten the duration of yellow lights, apparently to generate more ticket revenue. Last year, CBS News reported on an especially egregious case in Maryland: A traffic-camera intersection had a 2.7-second yellow light, while nearby intersections had 4-second times. Shorter yellow lights are more dangerous--but shorter yellow lights plus traffic cameras generate revenue.

These kinds of revelations led UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge to write on his blog: "In my book, these instruments of the devil are just a tax on drivers." The American Automobile Association and the National Motorists Association agree, and opposition has led several states to enact laws restricting the use of traffic cameras.

C.J. Burton

Meanwhile, some motorists are taking matters into their own hands. Various devices of dubious legality are sold to drivers to render traffic cameras ineffectual, including reflective sprays and polarized license-plate covers that promise to make the photos illegible. (In Europe, the GPS-based Talex Speed Camera Alert System warns drivers approaching areas known to be camera-equipped.) Some motorists have resorted to vandalism, shooting or spray-painting the cameras.

Defenders of the cameras respond that red-light running is a genuine problem, and that something has to be done about it. But if the emphasis is on safety--rather than on revenue--there are better ways of dealing with the problem. A recent study done by the University of Central Florida for the Florida Department of Transportation found that improving intersection markings in a driving simulator reduced red-light running by 74 percent without increasing the number of rear-end collisions. Likewise, a Texas Transportation Institute study found that lengthening yellow-light times cut down dramatically on red-light running. It also found that most traffic-camera violations occurred within the first second after the light turned red (the average was just one-half second after the light change), while most T-bone collisions occurred 5 or more seconds after the light change. If there's a problem, cameras aren't really addressing it.

Whatever their limitations, law-enforcement cameras can be irresistible for local governments since they're literally money machines. But voters have other ideas. As an editorial on the automotive blog thetruthaboutcars.com notes, "Every time photo radar is put to a direct popular vote, it loses." In 2002 the city council in Lyndhurst, Ohio, dropped a plan to install speed cameras after encountering intense public opposition. ("DOA. Never to be revisited again. Bad idea," one councilman said of the proposal.)

And in Akron, Ohio, the city council voted to refund a portion of fines to more than 2000 drivers who were ticketed by speed cameras during a 19-day period last year. Among other complaints, some drivers claimed that they were issued tickets in school zones during times when low school-zone speed limits were not in effect. If speed cameras catch on, despite such local opposition, expect to hear similar complaints about badly marked speed zones and other moves calculated to catch motorists unawares.

Two groups likely to embrace traffic cameras, however, are lawyers and political consultants. In many states, photos taken by the cameras will be discoverable under state Freedom of Information acts. That means anyone who asks can get copies. A personal-injury lawyer might use the photos as evidence in support of a lawsuit claiming that intersections are unsafe. A political consultant might look for pictures of incumbent politicians speeding and running lights--and then check to see if the pictures show someone sitting in the passenger seat, and do a little more digging to find out just who that person might be. The possibilities are endless.

But there's more to it than politics. Do we as a nation really want to go down this road? To see where we could be heading, look at Britain with its surveillance cameras. Starting in December, the British government began compiling a database of information from thousands of cameras around the country. Using 35 million license-plate "reads" a day, it will be able to pinpoint the location of every vehicle on British roads. Can you say "Big Brother"?

If voters don't make politicians rethink these automated cops, perhaps lawyers and political opponents will. Otherwise, get used to Big Brother watching you. And mailing you a ticket.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and writes the blog instapundit.com. His book, , will be published this month.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io