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

elements and engineering measures to obtain appropriate speeds; setting speed limits that are rational, 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 areas 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 operations of the program. The guidelines are written from a U.S. perspective and emphasize U.S. contexts 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 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, particularly in increased traffic flow and reduced congestion, 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 rapidly. 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. 

It is important to explain the philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program through communications 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 replace, 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 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.

 

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 associated 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 compliance 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 ability 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 enforcement alone (e.g., Pilkington & Kinra, 2005; Cunningham, Hummer, & Moon, 2005). The “SpeedEnforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines” have been prepared to assist program managers, 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 minute. This can provide a strong deterrent effect by increasing drivers’ perceived likelihood of being 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 vehicles 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 enforcement speed threshold. 

Efficient use of resources. ASE can act as a “force multiplier,” enhancing the influence of limited traffic enforcement staff and resources. 

•

•

•

•

Although ASE has some advantages, the aforementioned evaluations of ASE systems have also identified 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 violator 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, ranging 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 reported 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 programs in the United States have been evaluated and have been responsible for reductions in speeding 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 Department 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 estimated 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 preexisting 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 (Washington, 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. Preliminary 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 deployment 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 document 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 individuals 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 rapidly. 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 enforcement, 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 enforced 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 violating the 5th amendment ‘takings clause’ by booting vehicles (placing a metal device on a vehicle 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 issue 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) “photoradar 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 Highway 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 Committee 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. Another 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 referenda, introduction of disabling legislative bills, local government legislative bodies, and, indirectly, public 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 (initial) 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 interpretations 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 payment collection. As a result, all jurisdictions in North Carolina using automated enforcement technology were required to pay 90 percent of revenues to local school systems, plus back payments of previously collected revenues. The drastic reduction in recoupable revenues has led all automated enforcement 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, legislative bills were introduced that would not explicitly forbid ASE, but would add infeasible operational requirements or influence revenue flow in a way that would make programs prohibitively costly. For example, Sub. H.B. 56 introduced in the Ohio legislature would require a police officer to be present during 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 recipient, Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice, and Violation notices issued to government 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 reflect 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 relationships 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 speedingrelated 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 objectives 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 according to program rules and regulations. 

Maintain program transparency by educating the public about program operations and be prepared 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., “Reduce 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 strategic 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 participants 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. Countermeasures can include improved signage, pavement markings, and traffic signals; improved 

roadway hardware and design features such as guardrails or shoulders and removal of dangerous roadside obstacles to mitigate the effects of road departure crashes; pavement resurfacing; 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 potential 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 advantages 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 involved 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 representatives 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 jurisdictions. Police resources are limited and there are competing demands for officers’ time. Dedicated leadership, staff, and resources can help to ensure that ASE is fully staffed and operated 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 enforcement and that ASE will supplement, rather than replace, traffic stops by officers. It is important 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 evidence must meet the standard required to uphold a speeding conviction. To that end, verification 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 defendant 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 restrictions 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 information on interactions with the public). 

10

•

•

•

Depending upon the structure of the ASE program, there may be other people or organizations involved 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 public safety. In-person demonstrations of the technology can help to demystify ASE and convince stakeholders it is reliable. A stakeholder committee can also provide valuable guidance for an ASE program beyond the planning and startup stages. Periodic meetings should be held throughout the duration 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 compile 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 guidelines 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 jurisdictions 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 nonpoint offenses, driver identification is typically not required, and the penalty for a violation is a fine issued 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 jurisdictions 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 identification 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 license sanctions is consistent with traditional enforcement penalties and the U.S. DOT Speed Management 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 recommends 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 program 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 instance, Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota found that the Minneapolis red light camera program, 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 identification may be viewed as fairer and more safety-oriented than vehicle identification. Driver identification 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 difficult to issue a citation to someone driving a vehicle not registered in that driver’s name. Some jurisdictions 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 violations (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 deterrence 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 important 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 operation 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 traffic (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 roadside vegetation or other vehicles in the line of sight. In-ground sensors overcome many of the challenges of line of sight, but are immobile and likely require road closures for installation and maintenance. 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), downthe-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 speedmeasuring 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 operator-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 shutter 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 ensure the integrity of photographic evidence. Electronic encryption can prevent unauthorized individuals from tampering with or accessing photographs (see Chapter 3: Information management: Compatibility, 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 expressed 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 visible 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 record 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 alternative 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 offending vehicles are required. An operator is typically present to monitor a mobile ASE unit while it operates 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 without 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 intersections to conduct both ASE and red light camera enforcement simultaneously. Figure 2 shows a polemounted 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 perceived 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 photographic evidence. However, not all courts accept this so-called “silent witness” theory of photographic 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 vehicle’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 strategies 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 requirements, 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 precursor to program start-up and developing a request for proposal to solicit responses from potential vendors. 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 stakeholder 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 ensure 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 speeding-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 generally 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 equipment 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. Responsiveness 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 evaluations 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, & Folkman, 2005; Hess, 2004; Keenan, 2004; Winnett, 2003). Although the length of this distance halo effect 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 effects, 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 locations. In general, defining a site as a corridor can be expected to result in a more widespread deterrent 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 corridor 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 resolved 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 anywhere. Sites clustered in particular neighborhoods can provoke charges of biased operations or targeting of particular groups. Site selection should also avoid the perception of prejudice toward particular groups, such as out-of-town commuters. 

Road types 

Distribution of enforcement between various road types can help to maximize safety benefits throughout 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 quality 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 association 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 enforcement methods are infeasible or hazardous. Precise documentation of site features, such as location, 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 uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control. Nationally, the fewest number of speedingrelated 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 conducted 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 implementing 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 without 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 appropriate 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 procurement requires the input of experts in technology, finance, and legal issues. Procurement and contracting 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 operation 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 operation. 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). Workload 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 managers 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 underlying 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, vendor-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 program 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 registration 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 workload, processing time, and potential for errors. Program managers should observe data flow procedures 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 access 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 evidence. 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. Electronic 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 identifying 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 campaign 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 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. 

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 implementation. 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 drivers 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 supplement 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 located. 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 measurement 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 believe 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 evaluanducted 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 percent 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, & Gilbert, 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 declined 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 speedenforcement 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 cameras 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 important 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 violations, 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 presumed 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 increase 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 simply set according to the maximum reasonable speed of a 

solitary vehicle; they also accommodate the safety of pedestrians, 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 jurisdiction. Media interest in ASE is likely to be high during the months before and after ASE is implemented. Local television, radio, and print media outlets will want to cover the program, so it is important to facilitate their efforts. Press releases or video releases can be used to provide important information to the media and to announce program milestones or changes. Program managers or other 

representatives should be available for interviews, system demonstrations, and enforcement ridealongs. 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 critical. Reporters may want traffic safety statistics, ASE program reports, rationales for particular decisions, and other information, so it is important to make this information available. Slow or unsatisfactory 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, marketing 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 speeding-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 (Charlotte, 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 relations 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 buildings 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 information, press releases, and more. A frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) section can be used to answer 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 respond 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 marketing materials. 

Surveys are the best way to assess overall public opinion on a broad scale, but are not particularly 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 effectiveness, 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 violations 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 additional 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 encourage 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 motorists 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 mitigate speeding. 
 

27

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONS 

ENFORCEMENT PLAN 

The enforcement plan is the set of procedures and policies that determine how enforcement is conducted. The enforcement plan should focus on achieving the goals identified in the program’s strategic 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 operation 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 particular site. The enforcement speed threshold should be the same that is used for traditional speed enforcement, and should be at the point of exceeding reasonable and prudent speeds. Many jurisdictions begin enforcement at speeds 11 mph above the speed limit. This threshold is generally considered 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 engineering 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 variance 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 identifying 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 equipment. Covert enforcement is conducted with ASE units that are unmarked and with no specific warning 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 because 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 substantial 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 effective in improving safety when combined with a substantial marketing and media campaign (Diamantopoulou & 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 encountering 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). Although 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 jurisdiction 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 maximize 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 Enforced” 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. Standalone 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 volumes, 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 enforcement 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: Coordination 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 enforceable sites, and the best method for a particular jurisdiction depends upon the number of enforceable 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. Program 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 occasionally 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 enforced 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 enforcement 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 frequent 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 deployments. 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, including 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 reductions 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 distribute enforcement throughout the jurisdiction, encompassing a variety of road types. Covert enforcement 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 problematic 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 enforceable Many road types/areas enforceable 

Chapter 3: Road types 

ASE focused on small number of 

sites 

ASE distributed amongst large 

number of sites 

Chapter 3: Selection factors 

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 speeding 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 changeable message signs are used to present information to passing vehicles, messages should be designed 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 traffic 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 enforcement 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 distances 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 proportion 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 determine 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 program 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 jurisdiction is relieved of the need to hire and train operators. No matter who operates ASE units, the jurisdiction’s program manager must maintain control and oversight of all ASE activities and monitor the operation to ensure that operators are in full compliance with laws and policies. 

Most vendors provide training for ASE operators, regardless of their affiliation. Supplementary documentation 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 operators may require practice and experience before they achieve peak performance. Close supervision 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 specifications provided in NCHRP Report 350 (Ross, Sicking, Zimmer, & Michie, 1993). Specific setup factors 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. Another 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 configuration and aim of violation detection equipment and cameras, proper focus of cameras, and proper function 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 speeding, 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 information and notes recorded by the ASE operator, such as an event log (see Chapter 4: Event documentation). 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 possible. 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 network 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 ensuring 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 identifying 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. Speedmeasuring 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 contest 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. Numerous 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 jurisdiction 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 because 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 because 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 vehicle 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 consecutive photographs or a video record of the violation are recorded, they should be reviewed for visual 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 administration. 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 violations. 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 registration 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 additional 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 jurisdictions that perform an initial gender match, about one in five recorded violations is dismissed because 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 observed 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 delivered 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 information 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 procedures 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 violations 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 officers are appropriate reviewers because they are knowledgeable about traffic laws and enforcement 

technologies, because police officer certification of citations more closely matches traditional enforcement 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 appropriately 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 failure, 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 violations, 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, violation 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 association 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 minimize 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 receive vehicle registration information from the motor vehicle administration should require motor vehicle administration staff to deliver the information to processors in a timely manner. Adequate processing 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 photographs 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 tampering (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 delivered 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 supplementary material can improve notice recipients’ understanding and acceptance of the program, reduce 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 examples). The review process should be described with an emphasis on the presence of a trained reviewer 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 instance, a list of common questions and their answers can be provided. Recipients should also be directed 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 burden 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 reduction or dismissal of penalties. Jurisdictions may consider providing a payment extension or installment 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 responsibility 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 vehicle 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. Specific 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 identification 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 recorded 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 perceived 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 support 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 procedures, 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 material such as a video of the violation, site photographs, crash history statistics, and site speed distribution 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 encourage 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 discarded, it may be sent to an outdated address, the recipient may forget about the notice or procrastinate 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. Additional penalties for a failure to respond to the first notice or subsequent notices may include the inability to contest the citation or proclaim innocence, late fees, inability to reregister the vehicle or drivers 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 developing 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 businesses) 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 program 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 support calls should be recorded and regularly reviewed by program mangers to determine what confusions 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 perceived 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 vehicles and the frequency of speeding violations. Speed data can give a general idea of the effectiveness 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 indication 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 sometimes 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 related 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 independent organization with experience in evaluation design and statistical analyses. Evaluations conducted 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 widespread 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 anticipation of enforcement or as a result of a heightened awareness of the dangers of speeding instilled 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 measures 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 effects 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 subject to different confounds than those in the enforced jurisdiction (e.g., the effectiveness of its conventional 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 frequency 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 broken 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 result 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 documentation is currently being collected, efforts should be made to work with police and emergency responders 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 meaningful 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 effects, 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 jurisdiction’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 program). Program managers can benefit by gaining knowledge of current levels of awareness and acceptance and by identifying areas that need improvement. The public can also benefit from the opportunity 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 sample of the relevant population (e.g., residents of the jurisdiction who have driver’s licenses). Sometimes 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 language, 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 survey 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 perceptions 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 deployed 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. Winnipeg, Canada: City of Winnipeg Audit Department. 

Corbett, C., & Simon, F. (1999). The effects of speed cameras: How drivers respond. London: Department 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 Management. 

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 Prevention, 34, 343-346. 

Department for Transport. (2006). Handbook of rules and guidance for the national safety camera programme 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. Report no. TRL637. Crowthorne, England: TRL Limited. 

Elvik, R. (1997). Effects on accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Norway. Transportation Research 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. Transportation 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: Strategies 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 vehicle 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 Carolina 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. Report 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 enforcement, vehicle speeds, and injury crashes in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Institution 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 Columbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37. 

Roberts, C.A., & Brown-Esplain, J. (2005). Technical evaluation of photo speed enforcement for freeways. 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: National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 

Royal, D. (2003). National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviors: 2002. Volume 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: National Academy Press. 

U.S. DOT Speed Management Team. (2005). U.S. Department of Transportation speed management 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 Department 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 people. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, 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 Conference, 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 Education 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 Conference, 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 University 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 Conference, 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: lessons 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, Policing 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 Conference, 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 - automated 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 programme: Three year evaluation report. London: Department for Transport. 

Gains, A., Humble, R., Heydecker, B., & Robertson, S. (2004). Safety performance of traffic management at major motorway road works. London: Department for Transport. 

Gains, A., Nordstrom, M., Heydecker, B., & Shrewsbury, J. (2005). The national safety camera programme: 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 Compendium 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 enforcement 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 camera 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 Conference, 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, Washington, 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 Columbia. 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 “Escape” 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 Research Services Ltd. 

Tae-Jun, H.A., Jeong-Gyu, K., & Je-Jin, P. (2003). The effects of automated speed enforcement systems 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: International 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 Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Sydney, Australia. 

Ward, H. (2004). Safety cameras in Great Britain - The continuing debate. In Proceedings of the Australasian 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 implemented in dozens of countries around the world. In the United States, about 20 jurisdictions are currently 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. However, 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 operations, 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 government bodies often must provide initial approval for ASE to be conducted. Police departments are typically 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 program. 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 programs 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 cameras. Some States initially passed legislation to allow a temporary ASE demonstration project. Legislators 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 jurisdiction 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 addition 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 citation. 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 predictable. 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 enforcement to residential neighborhoods, school zones, park areas, and construction zones with average 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 jurisdictions in the United States that currently conduct ASE on freeways. Oregon law specifically prohibits 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. Resident 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. Scottsdale’s contract specifies that the equipment vendor must not have input in site selection. Portland selects sites where vehicle speeds are substantially above the speed limit and where citizens have expressed 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 conducted 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 approved 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 jurisdictions use a van or other vehicle equipped with the suite of speed monitoring and photographic equipment. 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 vehicle, 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 jurisdictions. In San Jose, signage is located at entrances to neighborhoods and on enforced streets. Washington, 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 notification signs on all major highway entrances to jurisdictions where ASE is used. In Charlotte, supplementary plaques that state “Photo Enforced” were placed below every speed limit sign on ASEenforced 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, presence 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 Department 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 supervision 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 Valley, 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 instance, 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 penalties 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 roadway, allowing the system to monitor speeds in multiple lanes and in both directions of travel. The majority 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 recorded 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 traffic. 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 remotely 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 simulA-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 quality 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 jurisdictions. During the first weeks of Scottsdale’s freeway ASE demonstration, the challenges of capturing 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 government 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 vehicle 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 recorded 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 differences 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 violation. 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 Paradise Valley and San Jose require recipients to come to a court building if they choose to view the photos. 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 observed 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 violation. Scottsdale originally required that notices be sent out within 30 days of the violation, but because of improved procedures currently requires that notices be mailed out within 14 days of the violation. In Tempe, citations are often sent about four weeks after the violation due to procedural inefficiencies. 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 someone 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 jurisdictions 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 completion 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 citations. 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 witness is generally provided by the vendor or the agency that manages the program (e.g., police or department 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 defendant 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 license. However, in Mesa and in all jurisdictions in Colorado (by State law), the citation must be dismissed 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 responsible 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 investigate longer-term effects and the effects of changes in enforcement operations. Furthermore, substantial 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 Portland, 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 period 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 program 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 began 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 apTable B-2. Traffic fatalities in Washington, DC, 2000 through 2004 

Number of traffic 

fatalities involved in 

speed-related 

crashes 

Total 

number of 

traffic fatalities 

Percent of fatal 

crashes that 

were speedrelated 

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 decreased by less than 1 mph at enforced sites, relative to control sites. The authors report an estimated 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 influenced 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, enforced 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 section 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 Columbia. 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 Department 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 enforcement. 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 intended 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 established. 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 ruling 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 ruling 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, procedural, 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 presumption) 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), preservation (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 

case law regarding automated enforcement, the path will most likely be contorted. The law is known 

for nuances. Thus, subtle distinctions between photo red light programs may affect a court’s decision 

and produce seeming inconsistencies. Most importantly, the classification of the photo red light violation, as either a civil or criminal violation, will dramatically effect decisions. Similarly, as in the San 

Diego photo red light program, the enabling statute may impact the admissibility of the evidence (see 

below for enabling statutes). A State’s surrounding body of law and the manner in which the program 

is conducted will also impact the viability of the photo red light program and the success or failure of 

challenges to the program. Without assessing merit, the following are some of the procedural and 

substantive issues that may be generated by photo red light enforcement. 

Procedural Issues: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Authentication of photographs 

Chain of evidence of photographs 

Compliance with enabling statutes 

Foundation: Device reliability (maintenance, checks for accuracy, training of personnel involved in 

the process) 
Misuse or dissemination of photographs 

Municipal drafting 

Notice – compliance with applicable State rules for service 

Proper notice of use of photo red light enforcement (signs) 

Standing – who can bring an action, when, and where 

A-17

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Substantive Issues: 

• 

• 

• 

Administration of the program violates Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights 

Confrontation rights (6th Amendment right) 

Equal protection (disparate treatment for public, police, rental, corporate, out-of-State vehicles, morists cited by police) 

Fifth amendment right to remain silent (for statutes requiring affidavit as to who was driving) 

Mailing a citation that requires appearance is a seizure subject to the 4th amendment 

to

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Photographing a motorist is a search subject to the 4th amendment 

Pre-charging delay (delay between the violation’s occurrence and receipt of notice) – 14th amendent due process 

Presumption that the registered owner is the driver impermissibly shifts the burden of proof 

Privacy – violation of State privacy laws 

Revenue generation: selection criteria for photo red light enforcement, light phase timing 

Substantive due process - Privacy 

m

The above are all issues that are likely to continue to be the subject of legal review and refinement. 

Monitoring their long-term clarification through legal proceedings is to be advised for all jurisdictions 

adopting red light camera enforcement systems. The remainder of Appendix C reviews current relevant case law examples and in doing so illuminates the types of issues that have been raised. 

PHOTO RED LIGHT CASE LAW SYNOPSIS

Dajani v. Governor of Md., No. CCB-00-713, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 982 (D. Md. Jan. 24, 2001) 

(unreported). 

Facts: The defendant was charged with a photo red light violation and convicted. In this jurisdiction, 

photo red light violations are civil and not considered moving violations. Insurance companies may not 

consider the convictions. 

Issue: The defendant appealed to the Federal district court, requesting the court declare the statute 

unconstitutional. The defendant alleged the photo red light statute violated the 6th amendment’s Confrontation Clause and the 14th amendment’s Due Process Clause. 

The court upheld the conviction on procedural matters (lack of Federal jurisdiction and lack of standing) without comment on the constitutional issues. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 

District Court’s decision. (Dajani v. Governor of Md., No. 01-1179, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17303 (4th 

Cir. 2001). 

Kovach v. District of Columbia, 805 A.2d 957 (D.C. 2002). 

Facts: The defendant paid, without contesting, a photo red light citation. Subsequently, the police department “decided to remove the camera because it was observing an inordinate number of people 

running the light, which was confusing to motorists.” Id. at 959. Outstanding fines were dismissed, but 

those motorists who had paid were not reimbursed. 

Issue: The defendant appealed, alleging the District’s decision to forgive some, but not all, violations 

violated the 5th and 14th amendments. 
 

The court upheld the conviction because “in failing to contest the infraction, appellant effectively acknowledged liability for running the red light.” The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that 

the confusing placement of the stoplight created “manifest injustice.” The defendant “has no standing 

to challenge the decision unless . . . he was confused . . .” Id. at 962-63. 

Structural Components Int., Inc. v. City of Charlotte, No. C0A102-200 (N.C. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 

2002) (unreported – not final until expiration of rehearing period). 

Facts: The president of Structural Components received a photo red light citation for one of its 

vehicles. In this jurisdiction, violations are civil. Structural Components contested the violation at a 

“review hearing.” 

Issue: Upon conviction, Structural Components (plaintiff) filed suit in the superior court alleging negligence (by failing to establish reasonable guideline, failure to govern the program in a reasonable 

manner, and failure to provide a reasonable appeals process) and civil rights violations (State/Federal 

due process and equal protection). 

Upon defendant’s (the City and Lockheed Martin) motion to dismiss, the court determined it lacked 

jurisdiction and dismissed the action. Structural Components appealed. The appellate court affirmed 

the trial court’s dismissal on procedural grounds (waiver of the negligence action for failure to properly 

State issue in appeals brief and, because one cannot recover monetary damage for a procedural due 

process violation involving a civil penalty, failure to state a claim). The court noted the proper avenue 

to challenge the constitutionality of the statute was by certiorari to the superior court (which Structural 

Components had not used) and the present statutory scheme provided an adequate method for challenging the legality of the program. 

City of Commerce City v. Colorado, 40 P.3d 1273 (Colo. 2002). 

Issue: Commerce City challenged whether the Colorado statute (COLO. REV. STAT. § 42-4-110.5 

(2002)), which authorized the photo red light program, infringed upon the city’s “home-rule” powers. 

Noting that the program involved a “mix” of State and local concerns and, where conflicts arose, State 

concerns prevail, the court affirmed the validity of the program. 

People v. John Allen (In re Red Light Camera Cases), No. 57927SD (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 2001) 

(order denying motion to dismiss) (available at http://freedom.gov/auto/ cases/sdmotion.asp). 

This case remains under appeal. This order is presented to illustrate issues that may arise with 

photo red light enforcement. 

Facts: Defendants in a photo red light case filed a motion to dismiss alleging failure to comply with the 

authorizing statute (section 21455.5 of the California Vehicle Code). In this jurisdiction, the violation is 

criminal and a conviction is entered onto the driver’s license record. 

Issue #1: The defendants contended the photo red light program was not operated by a government 

agency in cooperation with a law enforcement agency as required by the authorizing statute. 

The court noted “once the construction process was begun, there was very little City involvement.” The 

City did not inspect the project when complete and the “entire process of installation and calibration of 

the camera equipment, putting film into the cameras, unloading the cameras, developing the film, 

maintaining the camera equipment, and reviewing the photographs to make the initial determination as 

to whether or not there was a violation and whether the alleged violator can be identified, is done by 

Lockheed Martin. Further, once Lockheed determines that a citation will not [be] issue[d], that decision 

is not reviewed by the City. 

If Lockheed decides a citation should [be] issue[d], it reviews Department of Motor Vehicles’ information . . . prints the citation, including printing the signature of the sergeant in charge of the program on 

the citation. The first time the City becomes involved is when the police department receives the citation which has already been printed.” The police review copies of the photographs and the digital information to determine whether the citation should be issued. If a citation is issued, Lockheed mails it 

....” The court found the City had “no involvement with, nor supervision over, with the ongoing operation of the system” and “[t]he Legislature did not contemplate such a lack of participation by the City” 

A-18
 

when it authorized a government agency to “operate an automated enforcement system.” Thus, the 

program violated the statute. 

Issue #2: The defendants contended the signs were inadequate. 

The statute required signs “clearly indicating the system’s presence, visible to traffic approaching from 

all directions.” The posted signs were 24 inches by 30 inches. Based upon testimony of police officers 

as to the signs visibility and the lack of evidence drivers were not able to see the signs, the court found 

the signs adequate. 

Issue #3: A related statute (section 40520 of the California Vehicle Code) required photo red light violations to be accompanied by an affidavit of non-liability, information as to what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for return. The defendants alleged this procedure was “unconstitutional because it requires innocent people to testify 

against each other.” 

The court noted the section was a legislative attempt to prevent blanket immunity for corporate and 

rental agencies vehicles and provides a method for the registered owner who is not driving to avoid 

liability. Without elaboration, the court determined the statute compliant with due process and “a legitimate exercise of the police power in an attempt to issue citations to the actual driver who violated 

the red light.” 

Issue #4: The California Penal Code (section 959.1) requires pleadings (citations) be sworn before an 

officer entitled to administer oaths. The defendants alleged that “no officer swears to the facts because 

the signature is affixed electronically before it is sent to the police and the officer who reviews the citation is not the sergeant whose signature appears on the citation.” The reviewing officer merely stamps 

his ID number below the signature. 

The court noted that pleading defects (i.e., minor errors in the pleading document) that do not prejudice a substantial right do not justify dismissal. 

Issue #5: The defendants argued that because the City did not comply with statutory provisions regarding the “operation’ of the program, all citations must be dismissed. In making its determination the 

court looked at the following issues. 

Issue #5A: Was the delegation of authority constitutional? 

Although, the City had delegated the tasks of evidence collection and determining who will not be cited 

to Lockheed Martin, the police retained the “ultimate authority to determine who will be prosecuted.” 

Thus, the delegation was not unconstitutional. 

Issue #5B: Is the fee paid to Lockheed Martin a contingency fee and if so, what is the legal effect? 

Because Lockheed’s payment was contingent upon a conviction, the fee was deemed a contingency fee. 

The court indicated that Lockheed was “supposed to be a neutral evaluator of the evidence” and 

“should not have a financial interest in the outcome.” The court reasoned that because the 

statute mandated a government agency “operate” the program, the purpose was to guarantee, “information obtained from the red light cameras would be trustworthy. The potential conflict created by a 

contingent method of compensation further undermines the trustworthiness of the evidence which is 

used to prosecute the red light violations.” 

Issue #5C: Does the delegation, without statutory authority, which operates on a contingent fee basis 

violate due process such that it requires a dismissal of pending actions? The court noted that the 

threshold question in a due process challenge to executive action is whether the behavior is “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.” In this case, 

the court held the conduct did not rise to that level. 

Issue #5D: Is the photo red light evidence admissible? 

The court indicated that “where evidence is obtained from sources subject to legislative standards, 

there should be substantial compliance.” The court noted that “there is no authority in the Vehicle 

Code for unsupervised private operation of a red light camera system. Therefore, there is not substanA-19
 

tial compliance with the safeguards required by the statute. Such a lack of authority, combined with the 

collection based compensation, result in evidence lacking foundation. Without foundation, the evidence is not relevant and is not admissible.” 

Accordingly, the court did not grant the motion to dismiss, but rather granted a motion to exclude 

the evidence. 

Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, Opinion No. JC-0460, 2002 Tex. Op. Atty. 

Gen. 20 (2002). 

Issue: Could a city pass an ordinance authorizing a photo red light program and could violations be 

civil, rather than criminal? 

Based on Texas law (which deemed red light violations criminal), the Attorney General opined a city 

could authorize a photo red light program to identify violators, but could not make violations civil. 

Office of the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, Opinion No. 01-004, 2001 Tenn. AG 

LEXIS 6 (2001) (available at http://www.attorneygeneral. state.tn.us/op/ 

2001/OP/OP4.pdf). 

Issue: The Attorney General’s Office was tasked with determining whether, pursuant to inherent police 

power, a city had authority to enact ordinances allowing photo-enforcement. 

Without addressing specific constitutional issues, the Attorney General’s opinion concluded that the 

use of photo-enforcement did not conflict with any State statute. In a footnote, the opinion noted 

photo-enforcement has “generally been viewed as a permissible exercise of State and local government police power which is not violative of Federal or State constitutional provisions.” 

Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, Opinion No. 00001, 2000 Neb. AG 

LEXIS 1 (2000) (Available at http//:www.ago.state.ne.us/opinion/index.html). 

The Attorney General’s office was tasked with assessing the constitutionality of proposed legislation 

involving photo red light enforcement. The Attorney General offered the following opinions: 

Issue #1: Procedural Due Process 

The proposed legislation permitted a defendant to contest the violation in a county court and assumed 

that proper notice would be provided. Thus, the Attorney General opined the proposed legislation 

would comply with the procedural due process requirements of reasonable notice and an opportunity 

to be heard. 

Issue #2: Substantive Due Process 

Substantive due process guarantees individuals protection from arbitrary government action. The Attorney General noted that due process is satisfied if the government has the power to act on the subject matter, if they did not act capriciously or in a discriminatory manner, and if there was a reasonable 

relationship to a proper governmental purpose. 

The Attorney General opined that the proposed legislation complied with substantive due process because protecting public safety is a proper subject matter and the legislation was rationally related to 

that interest. 

As to the registered owner presumption, the Attorney General opined this was also a “proper exercise 

of the State’s police power” similar to holding the registered owner of a parked vehicle liable. 

Issue #3: Equal Protection 

The Attorney General noted the similarities of the Nebraska and U.S. Constitution in that equal protection challenges not involving a suspect class or fundamental right are tested only for rationality. A Nebraska Supreme Court decision (State v. Michalski, 221 Neb. 380, 377 N.W.2d 510 (1985)) had held 

that driving is not a fundamental right, and that drivers were not a suspect class. 

The Attorney General opined that the classification would be between two types of drivers: (1) those 

individuals cited directly by an officer who receive a criminal penalty, and have the conviction recorded 

A-20
 

on their driver’s license; and (2) those individuals cited by the photo red light program who are subjected only to civil penalties and no recordation on their driver’s license. 

The Attorney General noted that, although the purpose of the legislation was not set forth, the 

apparent purpose was to reduce the hazards of running red lights. Thus, the Attorney General concluded that, given the “wide latitude” and deference to the legislative process, the legislation met the 

rational basis standard and the proposed law would comply with Equal Protection rights. 45 Red Light 

Camera Systems 

A-21

RELATED AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT CASE LAW SYNOPSIS 

Oregon v. Dahl, 57 P.3d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). 

Facts: An officer operating a photo radar unit photographed the defendant’s vehicle exceeding the 

posted speed limit. The defendant was the only registered owner. The officer observed the violation, 

but did not effect an enforcement stop and could not identify the driver. At trial, a witness commented 

that the defendant failed to provide a sworn certificate of innocence as permitted by statute. 

Issue #1: The defendant contended the Oregon statute which establishes a presumption that the registered owner of a vehicle is the driver impermissibly shifts the burden of persuasion. 

An Oregon statute (OR. REV. STAT § 153.030.1) provides that unless excepted, criminal procedure 

laws apply to traffic violations. However, a different statute (OR. REV. STAT § 153.076.2) provides 

that traffic violations must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (a civil standard). Because 

this statute authorized a civil standard of proof, the court reasoned a civil standard also applied to the 

presumption. Therefore, the burden shift was permissible. 

Issue #2: The defendant contended that, even if the violation is civil, the Oregon presumption statute 

violated due process standards. 

The court noted that both U.S. Supreme Court (Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Ct., 284 U.S. 8 

(1931)) and Oregon State court decisions required a “rational connection” between the fact proved 

and the ultimate fact presumed. The defendant argued that “vehicles usually have more than one key, 

licensed drivers outnumber registered vehicles, and vehicles commonly are borrowed or stolen, all of 

which indicate that vehicle are often driven by someone other than their owner.” The court, although 

acknowledging that vehicles are often driven by non-owners, found that “it is not irrational for the legislature to presume that vehicles are often driven by owners” and “we need not decide what facts are 

more likely to be true; the rational connection test does not require adoption of the best or most persuasive explanation.” Thus, the Oregon statute did not violate due process. Id. at 968-969. 

Issue #3: The defendant contended a witness reference to her failure to submit a sworn certificate of 

innocence violated her statutory and constitutional right to remain silent. 

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness 

against himself.” The court indicated that the defendant had failed to identify how she could have been 

exposed to any criminal responsibility. Thus, “her constitutional right was not implicated.” Id. at 969. 

Section 810.439 provides a defendant in a traffic violation case an opportunity to avoid trial by submitting a certificate of innocence. The defendant may disregard that opportunity. The court “assumed 

without deciding” that the witness’s comment impermissibly infringed on the defendant’s statutory 

right, however, the court also stated “there was no indication that the trial court relied on that testimony 

in making its decision.” Thus, the court found the defendant was not prejudiced by the comment. Id. 

McNeil v. Town of Paradise Valley, No. 01-17003, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17306 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 

2002). Not Published – Check with Court Rules. The case is presented to illustrate issues that may 

arise with photo red light enforcement. 

Issues: McNeil appealed the district court’s dismissal of alleged civil rights and Racketeer Influenced 

and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations premised on the issuance of an automated speed 

citation. The facts and basis for these contentions was not clearly set forth. However, it appears that 

McNeil contended the mailing of a traffic citation to the registered owner was a seizure and the process was in violation of due process. 
 

A-22

Without elaboration, the court found municipalities cannot constitute a RICO enterprise. Further the 

court indicated that, because a seizure requires intentional physical control, the mailing of a citation is 

not a seizure. As for the due process claim, the court indicated that the challenge to the citation in municipal court was sufficient. 

Oregon v. Clay, 29 P.3d 1101 (Or. 2001).

Facts: An officer operating a photo radar unit photographed the defendant’s vehicle speeding. The 

officer did not effect an enforcement stop and did not know the identity of the driver in the radar photo. 

Subsequently, a citation was issued and mailed to the defendant. The defendant did not appear at 

trial, but rather was represented by counsel. No evidence was presented on behalf of the defendant. 

The State presented no direct evidence that the defendant was the registered owner, but rather relied 

on witness testimony and an “official duty” presumption to establish the defendant as the registered 

owner. Upon being found guilty, the defendant appealed, contending the State had failed to prove that 

she was the registered owner of the vehicle. The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and 

the defendant appealed to the State supreme court. 

In this jurisdiction, the registered owner is presumed to be the driver – see Oregon Law 1995, Chapter 

579, sections 1-3 later codified to Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 810.438-810.439. Oregon statute section 811.123 requires proof that a particular person was speeding. 

Issue: The defendant contended there was insufficient evidence to permit the trier of fact to find that 

she was the registered owner of the vehicle. 

The court indicated that it did not “perceive any evidentiary basis . . . that would permit a trier of fact to 

find that the defendant was the registered owner of the speeding car.” Id. at 1103. The percipient witness could not identify the driver and there was no evidence to conclude the defendant was the registered owner (which would have invoked the presumption that the registered owner was the driver). 

The court indicated that because an officer had the authority, not a duty, to send the citation, the 

presumption that an “official duty had been performed” was not applicable. Because they could not 

prove the notice had been mailed to the registered owner, they could not prove the defendant was the 

registered owner. Because they could not prove that the defendant was the registered owner, the presumption that the registered owner was the driver was not applicable. 47 Red Light Camera Systems 

Oregon v. Weber, 19 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Facts: An officer operating a photo radar unit observed the defendant’s vehicle speed. The unit photographed the vehicle. Subsequently, the defendant was mailed a citation. 

Issue #1: The defendant contended the inscription (indicating vehicle speed) on the photograph was 

impermissible hearsay. 

The court indicated that, by statutory definition (Oregon Evidence Code 801), hearsay is a statement 

by a declarant and a declarant is a person who makes a statement. A machine, not a person, made 

the inscription on the photograph. Thus, the hearsay rule is inapplicable. 

Issue #2: The defendant contended the court should have excluded the photograph on chain-ofcustody grounds because the State offered no evidence as to “who picked up the film from the station, 

what happened to the film, how it was handled, or what was done to it prior to the citation and photograph being returned to the police station six days later.” 

The court indicated that, “given the totality of circumstances, the trial court was well within its discretion in determining that there was no appreciable likelihood of alteration or tampering and that no further foundation was required.” Id. at 381-82. 

Issue #3: The defendant contended the automated speed enforcement unconstitutionally shifts the 

burden of proof of the offender identity. 

The court ruled the defendant had failed to use the proper judicial procedure to preserve this issue. 

Issue #4: The defendant contended the time delay (between the occurrence of the violation and the 

mailing of the notice) violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. 
 

The court indicated that “for a precharging delay to give rise to a due process violation, a defendant 

must show both substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial and that the delay was done intentionally 

to gain a tactical advantage.” The court found the defendant failed to establish the State intentionally 

delayed the notice to gain a tactical advantage. Id. at 385. 

Bentley v. West Valley City, 21 P.3d 210 (Utah 2001). 

Issue: Plaintiffs, who received automated speed enforcement citations, sought reimbursement of fines 

alleging the automated enforcement program violated Utah Code section 41-6-52.5. None of the plaintiffs had challenged the program during the criminal proceedings. 

The court ruled on procedural grounds finding the plaintiffs failed to assert an “actionable civil theory 

under which criminal fines are recoverable. 

Anchorage v. Baxley, 946 P.2d 894 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). 

Facts: The defendants received automated speed enforcement citations. At trial, numerous witnesses 

testified to the reliability of the speed enforcement device. However, the trial court found the witnesses’ 

financial interest in the acceptance of speed enforcement units tainted their credibility. The magistrates 

found that, absent independent corroboration as to the reliability of the device, results were not admissible. 

Issue: The city appealed seeking a ruling that automated speed enforcement evidence was admissible 

without corroboration. 

The court indicated the case was moot because “we would only review the magistrates’ decision to 

determine whether the evidence presented would allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the 

municipality had failed to prove its case.” And, given the magistrates’ dim view of the witnesses’ credibility, no reversible error occurred. Id. at 598-99. 

West Valley City v. McDonald, 948 P.2d 371 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). 

Facts: The defendant received an automated speed enforcement citation and requested a jury trial. 

The State amended the complaint to a lesser charge (which did not warrant a jury trial). Subsequently, 

the defendant was convicted. 

Issue: The defendant appealed claiming that reducing the charge deprived her of her statutory right to 

a jury trial. 

The court upheld the conviction. 

Tonner v. Paradise Valley Magistrate’s Court, 831 P.2d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). 

Facts: An automated speed enforcement citation was mailed to General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), the registered owner. GMAC forwarded the notice to Tonner and mailed a copy of its 

transmittal letter to the court. The court reissued the notice to Tonner. Tonner failed to reply or appear. 

The court entered an order for a civil sanction (fine). 

Issue: Tonner filed an action to vacate the sanction arguing lack of personal jurisdiction based upon 

improper service of notice. 

The court indicated that under Arizona civil procedure rules (ARIZ. R. CIV. P. 4.1c), service is not 

complete unless acknowledged. As Tonner failed to reply, service was not complete. Without service, 

the court lacked jurisdiction by which to sanction Tonner. 

Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, (No Opinion No.) 2002 S.C. AG 

LEXIS 209 (2002). 

The Attorney General re-evaluated1 the use of automated traffic enforcement and concluded that 

“general case law and other authority reviewed herein support the conclusion that a properly drafted 

statute authorizing use of photo-radar or similar forms of automated traffic enforcement would pass 

constitutional muster. These authorities have reviewed automated traffic enforcement from a variety of 

constitutional perspective include the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the 4th amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 6th amendment’s right to present 

A-23
 

an adequate defense, as well as the federal and State constitution’s right to privacy. The general consensus is that automated traffic enforcement is constitutional.” 

“Of course, the constitutionality of any statute authorizing automated traffic enforcement would depend, in part, upon a well drafted statute.” 

See also: 

1. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, Opinion No 2000-0068, 2000 Miss. AG 

LEXIS 113 (2000) indicated that, prior to implementing a photo red light program, a municipality would 

need statutory authority allowing citation of the registered owner of a violator’s vehicle. 

2. Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 1996 S.C. AG LEXIS 54 (1996) regarding municipalities use of photo-radar in South Carolina. Though the opinion notes that no State 

statute prohibited photo-radar enforcement, the Attorney General nevertheless expressed concerns 

about the registered owner presumption, concluding that the Legislature was the appropriate authority 

to authorize use of the presumption. 

3. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Montana, 45 Op. Atty Gen. Mont. 7 (1993) regarding a 

municipality enacting a photo-radar ordinance. The Attorney General’s opinion noted “a presumption 

exists that legislative acts are constitutional” and “the constitutionality of a proposed legislative act is 

not an appropriate subject for an Attorney General’s Opinion.” 

4. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, 239 Op. Atty Gen. Ala. 52 (1995) regarding 

the use of photo radar devices. The Attorney General indicated that, “while the use of such devices is 

legal, the use of such devices to mail speeding citation to motorists would not comply with substantive 

or procedural requirement of Alabama law.” 

5. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, No. 82000-7, 2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 13 (2000) 

concluding the “Home Rule Act” allowed municipalities to enact photo enforcement programs. 

6. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, No. U2000-12, 2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 23 

(2000) concluding counties may enact ordinances permitting photo enforcement and whether such 

devices may be used within the State highway system. 

1 

See Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 1996 S.C. AG LEXIS 54 (1996). 

7. Tarr, Andrew N. J., Picture It: Red Light Cameras Abide by the Law of the Land, 80 N.C. L. REV., 

1879 (2002). 

8. Lehman, Mark. Are Red Light Cameras Snapping Privacy Rights?, 33 U. TOL. L. REV., 815 (2002). 

9. Naumchi, Steven Tafoya, Review of Selected 1998 California Legislation, Transportation and Motor 

Vehicles: Stop Photographic Enforcement of Red Lights, 30 MCGEORGE L. REV., 833 (1999). 

10. Stanek, Thomas M., Comment, Photo Radar in Arizona: Is it Constitutional?, 30 ARIZ ST. L.J., 

1209 (1998). 

A-24
 

A-25

AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT RELATED STATUTES AND ORDINANCES

Model Statute: 

National Committee of Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Automated Traffic Law Enforcement 

Model Law – www.ncutlo.org/autoenforce622.htm. 

State Statutes: 

1. California Vehicle Code– CAL. VEH. CODE §§ 210, 21455.5, 21455.6, 40518, 40520 (2003). 

2. Colorado Revised Statutes – COLO. REV. STAT. § 42-4-110.5 (2002). 

3. Delaware Code Annotated - DEL. CODE. ANN. TITL 21 § 4101(d) (2002). 

4. Official Code of Georgia Annotated – GA. CODE. ANN. § 40-6-20 (2002). 

5. Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated - 625 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/1-105.5, 5/11-306 (2002). 

6. Annotated Code of Maryland – MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. § 21-202.1 (2002). 

7. Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated – NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 484.910 (2002). 

8. New Jersey Annotated Statutes – N.J. STAT. ANN. § 39:4-103.1 (2002).

9. New York Consolidated Laws Service – N.Y. VEH. & TRAF. LAW § 1111-a (2002). 

10. General Statutes of North Carolina – N.C. GEN. STAT. § 160A-300.1 (2002). 

11. Oregon Revised Statutes – OR. REV. STAT. §§ 810.434 - 36, 438 - 439 (2001). 

12. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes - 75 PA.C.S. §§ 102, 3116 (2002). 

13. Utah Code Annotated –UTAH CODE ANN. § 41-6-52.5 (2002). 

14. Code of Virginia – VA. CODE. ANN. §§ 46.2-819.1, 833.01 (2002). 

15. Wisconsin Statutes - WIS. STAT. § 349.02 (2002). 

Ordinances: 

1. TOLEDO, OHIO, MUN. CODE § 313.12 (1999) and ORDINANCE NO. 451-00 (2000). 

2. DAYTON, OHIO, REV. CODE OF GEN. ORDINANCES NO. 70.121 (2002). 

3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE ANN. §§ 50-2209.01, 03 (2002). 

4. CHARLOTTE, N. C., ORDINANCE NO. 966 (1998) – see 

www.charmeck.org/Departments/transportation/special+programs/city+ordinance.asp
 

A-26

APPENDIX D: ASE UNIT SETUP CHECKLIST FOR BEAVERTON, OREGON 

City of Beaverton Photo Radar Deployment Form 

 

 

OPERATOR NAME: ________________________________________ DPSST #:___________________ 

LOCATION CODE: ______________ LOCATION DESCRIPTION: __________________________________ 

# OF LANES ENFORCED: ______________ SPEED LIMIT: _______ TRIGGER SPEED: ___________

 

5 CHECKLIST (Check In Sequence) 

Surveying the Site

F Confirm location of the van and offense is with the City 

limits of Beaverton 

F Verify that no large, metallic objects in radar’s field of view 

F Set out warning sign between 100 – 400 yards before 

Photo Radar Van 

F Verify that sunlight is not shining directly into camera lens 

Positioning the Vehicle

F Park the vehicle facing the direction of travel 

F Ensure vehicle is parallel with the road 

Radar Alignment

F Verify that the radar is locked in place. 

F Level the radar unit by checking the position of the level 

bubble and using the key and level provided. 

Starting the Deployments

F Turn main power switch to “ON” 

F Enter your operator’s details (user name and password) 

F Enter the deployment details (Settings) 

F Take a Manual Shot to test the cameras. 

F Take next vehicle shots to test image alignment 

F Verify the correct camera settings 

F Verify that both the flashes fire properly 

F Press the Start button to begin the deployment 

Ending the Deployment 

F Record statistical data as displayed 

F Press the Shut Down button to shut down system 

F Turn the power switch to “OFF” position 

F Collect warning signs 

DATE: VEHICLE: _________________________________________ 

 DEPLOYMENT TIMES: [From Operating Screen] STATISTICAL INFORMATION 

Deployment Start Time: ______________ (Hour: Mm) TRAFFIC COUNT: _________ 

Deployment End Time: ______________ (Hour: Mm) IMAGE COUNT: _________ 

TRAFFIC: LIGHT___ MODERATE___ HEAVY___ 

WEATHER: ________________________________________________ 

COMMENTS: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, DEPOSE & SAY: I HAVE BEEN PROPELY TRAINED & QUALIFIED TO OPERATE THE RTS SPEED 

CAMERA SYSTEM. ON THE DATE & TIME RECORDED ABOVE I PARKED THE SPEED CAMERA SYSTEM AT THE ABOVE LOCATION 

& USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, OPERATED THE TRAFFIC CAMERA TO MONITOR TRAFFIC. I CERTIFY THAT UPON 

REASONABLE GROUNDS I BELIEVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS COMPLAINED AGAINST ON THIS DATE UPON THE BASIS 

OF THE TRAFFIC CAMERA COMMITTED THE ACT DESCRIBED CONTRARY TO LAW & I HAVE CAUSED A NOTICE WITH A COPY 

OF THE COMPLAINT TO BE MAILED TO EACH DEFENDANT. 

Approach Sign______________feet Exit Sign________________feet 
 

A-27

APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CITATION FOR CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 

(FRONT) 
 

A-28

APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CITATION FOR CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 

(BACK)
 

APPENDIX F: LIST OF JURISDICTIONS USING ASE PROGRAMS 

A-29

Organization Location Phone 

San Jose Department of 

Transportation San Jose, CA 408-975-3725 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Charlotte, NC 704-336-4197 

Portland Police Bureau Portland, OR 503-823-2151 

California Highway Patrol Sacramento, CA 916-657-9090 

ext 4022 

Tempe Police Department Tempe, AZ 480-350-8065 

City of Boulder – Transportation Division Boulder, CO 303-441-4054 

Scottsdale Police Department Scottsdale, AZ 480-312-7014 

Metropolitan Police Department Washington, DC 202-576-9260 

Chevy Chase Village Police Department Chevy Chase, MD 301-654-7300 

Montgomery County Police 

Department 

Montgomery County, 

MD 

301-840-2881 

This list is comprised of jurisdictions that participated in an expert panel convened to assist in the development of the Speed-Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines. They are available to assist with concerns pertaining to ASE matters. 


DOT HS 810 916

March 2008

U. S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Federal Highway Administration