Fine-Based Automatic Traffic Enforcement (ATE)
As jurisdictions grapple with growing concerns over traffic safety and the role of police officers in traffic enforcement, there has been a proliferation of automated traffic enforcement.
ATE encompasses a wide range of technologies including: red light cameras, speed cameras, stop sign cameras, automatic license plate readers, and school bus stop cameras, among others. Despite differences in purpose and design, nearly all traffic camera systems, under our current system, are accompanied by fines and a wide range of potential fees.
Those who are unable to pay their fines quickly enough can also face sanctions – including additional fees, license suspensions, warrants, or even jail – while wealthier drivers can simply pay up and continue to drive, regardless of whether they change their behavior.
Research also shows that lower-income families and communities of color are often disproportionately impacted by traffic camera fines and fees, given a lack of investment in road safety measures in their communities and historical, racially-driven infrastructure and transportation design policies. Ultimately, ATE draws millions of more people into the justice system, exacerbates poverty, and creates perverse incentives that prioritize revenue over safety.
Enforcement alone will not create safer streets. Jurisdictions need a comprehensive approach to traffic safety that prioritizes infrastructure investments, better design and ensures working families are not disproportionately impacted and destabilized by fines and fees.
Safer streets require smart design, better infrastructure, and an end to fines and fees that harm working families.
- Prioritize non-financial sanctions. Communities should prioritize non-financial sanctions in traffic enforcement. These can include warnings, educational materials, online courses, or other interventions that do not come with a fee.
- Ensure proportionality to an individual’s ability to pay. If ATE fines are imposed, they must be proportionate to the individual’s ability to pay. At a minimum, individuals should have a way to apply for relief when the fines and fees initially imposed are beyond their ability to pay.
- No additional legal sanctions for those deemed unable to pay. Courts must not impose additional legal sanctions if a person lacks the ability to pay camera-generated fines.
- Eliminate fees. No fees, surcharges, penalties, or interest should be charged beyond the initial fines.
- Prioritize prevention and infrastructure changes. Communities should invest in street design, engineering, and infrastructure changes that can prevent speeding or other safety issues before adding or increasing enforcement that only addresses the problem after it occurs.
- Do not rely on ATE revenue to fund government programs or fill budget gaps. ATE programs create perverse incentives for local governments that come to rely on the revenue the cameras generate. Budgets must not rely on ATE revenue to fill budget gaps or fund critical government programs. Any revenue from traffic camera systems should instead be directed toward one-time funding projects or reserve funds.
Resources
- For an exploration of the intersection of the movement to eliminate unjust fines and fees and the movement to end traffic violence: Do Traffic Fines Make Us Safer and At What Cost
- For information on traffic calming measures that are more effective and immediate than camera systems: U.S. Department of Transportation’s Toolbox of Individual Traffic Calming Measures
- For recommendations encouraging the adoption of alternatives to enforcement-heavy approaches that enhance both safety and effectiveness: Beyond Enforcement: Prioritizing Safety in Federal Transportation Funding
- For actionable steps to help Vision Zero practitioners use speed cameras more effectively and equitably: Fair Warnings: Recommendations to Promote Equity in Speed Safety Camera Programs
- For a list of red flags that can help local officials determine if and how their ATE program may be exacerbating socio-economic disparities and harming their communities: Seven Red Flags in ATE Contracting
Related news
Seven Red Flags in ATE Contracts
