RedLight

Camera

Systems

Operational Guidelines

January 2005
i

 

 

 

 

RED LIGHT CAMERA 

SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL 

GUIDELINES 

Federal Highway Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration 

January 2005 
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreword 

Red light running is one of the major causes of crashes, deaths, and injuries at

signalized intersections. Most recent crash statistics show that nearly 1,000

Americans were killed and 176,000 were injured in 2003 due to red light running

related crashes. The monetary impact of crashes to our society is approximately $14

billion annually.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) support a comprehensive approach to intersection safety that

incorporates engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures to prevent

red light running and improve intersection safety. Red light cameras can be a very

effective countermeasure to prevent red light running. There are a number of studies

that indicate reduction in crashes at signalized intersections due to red light cameras.

FHWA is promoting red light cameras as one of its identified priority, market-ready safety

technologies.

This document is an update to a previous version dated March 2003 (1). The information

contained in this document is intended to foster discussions and initiatives that will

improve intersection safety by reducing crashes due to red light running. This document is

not a regulatory requirement and the decision to use red light cameras is a matter for local

decision-makers.

i 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 

CHAPTER II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................. 2 

Factors Contributing to Crashes Caused by Red Light Running.......................................... 2

Driver Behavior ......................................................................................................................... 2 

Intersection Design and Operation ........................................................................................... 2 

Vehicle Characteristics.............................................................................................................. 4 

Weather .................................................................................................................................... 4 

CHAPTER III. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................. 5 

Investigating Intersection Safety.............................................................................................. 5

Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 5 

Intersection Crash Data ............................................................................................................ 5 

Red Light Violation Data ........................................................................................................... 6 

Driver Behavior Observations ................................................................................................... 6 

Traffic, Signal, and Intersection-Related Data .......................................................................... 6 

Motorist Complaints and Comments......................................................................................... 7 

Engineering Study ..................................................................................................................... 7 

CHAPTER IV. COUNTERMEASURES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS ...................................... 8 

Engineering Countermeasures................................................................................................. 8

Traffic Operation and Signal Control......................................................................................... 8 

Intersection Geometry Changes ..............................................................................................11 

Education...................................................................................................................................11 

Enforcement ..............................................................................................................................11 

CHAPTER V. RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION....................................13 

Early Planning and Startup ......................................................................................................13

Steering Committee of Stakeholder Group Representatives ...................................................13 

Red Light Camera Program Objectives ...................................................................................14 

Legal Requirements.................................................................................................................14 

System Procurement Alternatives............................................................................................15 

Public Awareness and Information Campaign .........................................................................15 

ii 
iii

System Planning ...................................................................................................................... 20

Violations Processing Procedure ............................................................................................ 20 

Site Selection.......................................................................................................................... 20 

Warning Signs..........................................................................................................................21 

Traffic Signal Yellow Times ..................................................................................................... 22 

System Selection and Technologies ....................................................................................... 22 

Camera Unit............................................................................................................................ 22 

Intersection Lighting................................................................................................................ 23 

Camera Housing and Supporting Structure............................................................................ 23 

Vehicle Detection .....................................................................................................................24 

Communications ..................................................................................................................... 25 

Warning Signs......................................................................................................................... 25 

Engineering Design of Red Light Camera Systems ............................................................. 25 

Red Light Camera System Installation................................................................................... 26 

Operation and Maintenance.................................................................................................... 26

Citation Data Processing ........................................................................................................ 27 

System Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 28 

On-Going System Assessment............................................................................................... 28 

On-Going Public Information and Education........................................................................ 29 

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................... 30 

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................ 32 

APPENDIX A. PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS...............37 

iii 
iv

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Selected Red Light Camera System Acquisition, Installation, 

Operation, and Maintenance Alternatives.................................................................... 16 

Table 2. Payment Options for Contractor Owned and Operated

 Red Light Camera Systems ......................................................................................... 17 

Table 3. Payment Options for Agency Owned and Contractor Operated 

Red Light Camera Systems......................................................................................... 17 

Table 4. Public Awareness and Education Campaign Elements Used by 

Selected Red Light Camera Programs ........................................................................ 19 

Table 5. Camera Units Compared ............................................................................................. 23 

iv 
 

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 

The use of camera systems for the enforcement of red light violations at signalized 

intersections is increasingly widespread in the United States. State and local agencies 

have found that the use of red light camera systems can reduce red light running 

by motorists and, more importantly, reduce the number of crashes attributable to red light 

violations. A recent synthesis of literature on the safety impacts of red light camera systems 

found that there was “...a preponderance of evidence, albeit not conclusive, indicating that red 

light running camera systems improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used...

angle crashes are usually reduced, and, in some situations, rear-end crashes increase, but to a 

lesser extent.”(2) Furthermore, a recent study of red light camera systems in seven jurisdictions 

throughout the US confirmed that these systems are likely to reduce right-angle crashes but can 

increase rear-end crashes. However, the systems were found to provide an economic benefit of 

$28,000 to $50,000 at a treated site when considering the economic cost of crashes by crash 

type (3). The reduction in the number of crashes is especially important as crashes caused by 

motorists running red lights are, on the average, more deadly and damaging than other types of 

crashes at signalized intersections (4, 5, 6).

The purpose of these guidelines is to assist jurisdictions who are considering the implementation 

of red light camera systems and help them avoid inconsistent or incorrect application of such 

systems. Questions have been raised regarding the contracting, design, implementation, 

operation of red light camera systems, and the legality and intent of photo enforcement systems. 

In a broader perspective, for continued use of red light camera systems and other technologies 

to improve transportation operations and safety, it is vital these technologies are perceived as 

accurate and reliable and are applied fairly.

Red light cameras are currently in place in more than 95 communities in the United States. As 

red light camera programs continue to be implemented across the nation, there is much to be 

learned from previous experiences. Traffic engineers, law enforcement officials, and other 

State and local agency managers can benefit greatly from guidance and research that provides 

effective and comprehensive procedures for implementing a successful red light camera 

program.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) have developed this operational guideline for use by State and local 

agencies for the implementation and operation of red light camera systems. Although not a 

regulatory requirement, the guideline is intended to provide critical information for State and 

local agencies on relevant aspects of red light camera systems in order to promote consistency, 

proper implementation, and operation; and to ensure that this effective tool and other forms of 

technology remain available to transportation and enforcement agencies around the nation.

This guideline can be used by State and local agency managers, transportation engineers, 

and law enforcement officials to identify and properly address safety problems resulting from 

red light running within their jurisdiction. This guideline outlines proven and effective practices 

implemented in the United States, and provides operational guidance that can be followed to 

ensure that cost-effective solutions are implemented by State and local agencies. The Institute 

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has issued Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Factors 

and Countermeasures to Prevent Red Light Running (7) that discusses in detail many of the 

issues and practices identified in this document.

1 Red Light Camera Systems 
CHAPTER II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM 

Red light running and the collisions and injuries that result from it has become a national 

safety problem. Incidences of red light running, along with other aggressive driving 

behaviors, is on the rise. For 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are 

available, there were 206,000 red light running crashes, resulting in 934 fatalities and 176,000 

injuries (8).

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CRASHES CAUSED BY RED LIGHT RUNNING 

A number of factors that contribute to crashes caused by red light running have been identified 

from research and crash data studies. These factors include namely:

• Driver behavior.

• Intersection design and operation.

• Vehicle characteristics.

• Weather.

Driver Behavior 

Driver behavior (including speeding and aggressive driving) is the most significant contributing 

factor to the occurrence of red light running. Motorists may accelerate when anticipating a 

change in signal indication, in order to make it through the intersection on the yellow. If a 

motorist misjudges the time of the signal change, he or she will enter the intersection against 

the red signal indication. 

Motorists driving above the posted speed limit or driving too fast for conditions increase the 

distance needed to stop before entering intersections and decrease the distance available to 

react to a change in traffic signal indication. In other words, speeding significantly increases the 

risk of running a red light and the possibility of being involved in a crash as a result of running 

the red light.

For many drivers, inattentiveness may also be the contributing cause. Drowsiness, conversing 

with passengers, eating, and use of a cellular phone or other electronic devices are among 

the many common distractions that cause drivers to reduce their focus on the task of driving. 

Inattentive or distracted drivers may perceive a change in signal indication late or in some cases 

not at all. Motorists, perceiving the signal indication late, may not perceive the change in time 

and run through the red signal. 

Intersection Design and Operation 

Deficiencies in the design and configuration of signalized intersections may contribute to 

red light violations. Certain design and configuration conditions (geometrics) may provide 

inadequate stopping distance, may cause motorist to be confused, or limit visibility of traffic 

control devices. Where these design and configuration conditions can be identified and 

corrected through engineering improvements, the number of red light violations can be 

reduced. Therefore, it is important when considering the use of a red light camera system, 

that an engineering study be done to identify potential engineering improvements that could 

be implemented in the intersection design and configuration. If an engineering study identifies 

countermeasures that might take considerable time to design and implement, then appropriate 

 Operational Guidelines 2
 

short-term temporary solutions should be considered while long-term improvements are 

investigated and implemented.

An engineering study can identify the following conditions that may be present at a signalized 

intersection and contribute to red light running by motorists:

• Grade

The grade of an intersection approach may significantly effect the time and distance 

needed for a motorist to stop a vehicle at an intersection. If approaching the intersection 

on a downhill grade, motorists may not account for vehicle mass and momentum, which 

will require longer stopping time (9).

• Poor Visibility 

Poor visibility due to darkness, rain, or snow and to a motorist’s impaired vision may 

prevent or reduce a motorist’s ability to see and react to signs, signals, and other traffic 

control devices at intersections and on the approaches to intersections in a timely 

manner.

• Roadside Obstructions

Roadside obstructions (i.e., parked vehicles, vegetation growth, pedestrians) may block a 

motorist’s field of view to road signs, traffic signals, and other features at the intersection, 

thus contributing to driver confusion. Intersections and adjoining approaches should be 

engineered so that roadside parking does not interfere with sign visibility. Signs should 

be regularly monitored and cleared of vegetation over-growth.

• Line of Sight 

As motorists approach an intersection, their line of sight to the intersection should be 

unobstructed. Any obstructions may reduce reaction times and/or negatively impact 

driver behavior. Line of sight problems often occur at intersections located at the base of 

a hill, where the traffic signal is partially or completely hidden from the driver’s view until 

reaching the top. Line of sight problems may also occur when following a taller vehicle, 

whereby the taller vehicle obstructs the line of sight of the driver of the following shorter 

vehicle.

• Traffic Volumes

Research studies have indicated that time of day and traffic volume may be associated 

with increased red light running behavior (5, 10). During peak traffic periods, increased 

traffic volumes and congestion may contribute to the number of motorists running red 

lights. Motorists traveling during these periods are often subject to the delays from 

traffic congestion that may negatively affect their driving behavior. If traffic signals are 

not properly timed to accommodate the increased traffic volumes and coordinated to 

enhance traffic flows, motorists may wait for two or more cycles before passing through 

signalized intersections. Frustrated motorists may choose to enter the intersection on a 

red light in order to avoid waiting through an additional cycle. Traffic volumes during the 

late evening and early morning hours are relatively light. During these time periods and 

especially on non-traffic-actuated approaches at signalized intersections, motorists may 

have to wait for extended times when there is little or no traffic on the other intersection 

approaches. Faced with this situation, motorists may engage in unsafe or aggressive 

3 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

driving behavior by electing to run the red light. A study has also indicated that larger 

intersections and high volumes seem to be related to red light running (10). 

• Signal Timing

Research studies have determined that inadequate signal timing generally tends to 

increase red light running by motorists at signalized intersections (9, 11, 12). Methods for 

development of signal timing plans and discussion of adequate clearance intervals can 

be found in the Traffic Control Systems Handbook (13) and the Manual of Traffic Signal 

Design (14) available from the ITE (www.ite.org).

Vehicle Characteristics 

Vehicle characteristics may contribute to red light running and to crashes resulting from red light 

running. Vehicles that carry heavy loads require additional time to slow and stop when a traffic 

signal changes to yellow (15). Drivers of vehicles with heavy loads may forget or disregard the 

effect of the loads on stopping distances, and this may result in red light running. 

Weather 

One study has found that weather is not a predictor of red light running (10). However, it is 

reasonable to infer that weather conditions such as heavy rain, snow, hail, or high winds may 

distract drivers, make roadway surfaces slick, and may cause stopping distance to be increased. 

Inclement weather conditions will likely exacerbate the effects of steep grades, limited sight 

distances, and high approach speeds. Reduced visibility resulting from severe weather, sun 

glare, or dust and debris may also prevent a motorist from observing signs, signals, or other 

traffic control devices in a timely manner. Location and configuration of signals relative to early 

morning and afternoon sun glare can reduce visibility of signal colors.

 Operational Guidelines 4
 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 

An initial step in determining if red light camera systems, or any other countermeasure, 

are to be employed, is to establish if a red light running and resulting crash problem 

exists in the jurisdiction in general or at a specific intersection. Red light running and 

crashes attributable to red light running may result from a number of contributing factors and, 

consequently, may be addressed by a variety of countermeasures encompassing engineering 

improvements, enhanced driver and public education, and increased enforcement. The red 

light running problem at any intersection needs to be investigated and the feasibility of all 

countermeasures, including red light camera systems, should be addressed.

Investigating Intersection Safety 

A systematic approach to the collection and analysis of various intersection safety-related data 

is important for the identification of intersections where there is a high incidence of red light 

running and for the investigation of countermeasures. The elements of the investigation are 

described below.

Data Collection 

An identification of intersections with high crash rates, public complaints, and those identified by 

law enforcement as having violation problems, is the first step in improving intersection safety. 

While complaints or other inputs from motorists and the general public about red light running at 

specific locations are helpful, data on crashes resulting from red light running and the number 

of red light violations at signalized intersections are required for an objective assessment of 

the potential safety problems and an understanding of factors that may be contributing to the 

problems.

Data for investigating intersection safety may be obtained from the following sources:

• Crash statistics and investigation records maintained by law enforcement and traffic 

engineering agencies.

• Crash statistics maintained by insurance companies, if available.

• Counts of citations issued by law enforcement officers for red light running.

• Camera surveys of driver behavior at intersections, including counts of red light violations.

• Field observations of driver behavior at intersections, including speed surveys, by trained 

personnel.

• Complaints or other inputs from motorists and the general public.

Intersection Crash Data 

State and local agencies typically collect crash data for injury crashes or crashes where 

property damage exceeds a pre-determined threshold amount. Generally, data regarding minor 

non-injury crashes are not collected.

5 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

Crash data is the most comprehensive basis for the identification and analysis of red light 

running at signalized intersections. The data should be classified with as much detail as 

possible, including:

• Intersection location, by identifier or street names.

• Crash type, for example, angle collision, rear-end collision, or striking a pedestrian or 

bicyclist.

• Crash location and vehicle movement, including movement direction, left turn, through, or 

u-turn.

• Crash day of week and time of day.

• Weather at the time of the crash.

• Type of vehicle: automobile, SUV, truck, bus, or motorcycle.

• Vehicle speeds.

Red Light Violation Data 

An analysis of red light running violation data may serve as an alternative to the crash data 

when crash data are not available. This data may be available from records maintained by law 

enforcement or from special studies collected by video cameras or other means. However, this 

approach is generally not recommended because the data may reflect targeted enforcement at 

selected intersections only and the criteria applied by individual officers for issuing citations may 

vary from one officer to another.

Driver Behavior Observations 

Video surveys or field observations may also provide important data on driver behavior and 

operational conditions at intersections. Conditions such as traffic repeatedly backing up into an 

intersection from adjacent freeway ramps or intersections, traffic backing into the through lane 

from the left-turn bay, or high speeds on the intersection approaches may be contributing to red 

light violations and to the incidence of crashes attributable to red light running.

Traffic, Signal, and Intersection-Related Data 

Intersection geometry, traffic volumes, and signal timing data are generally available from the 

State or local agency traffic engineering or public works department. The following data provide 

necessary information for a rigorous analysis of factors that may be affecting the frequency of 

crashes attributable to red light running:

• Signal operation: coordinated, fully actuated, semi-actuated, pre-timed, or isolated.

• Signal phasing: protected, permissive, or protected-permissive left turns, split phasing.

• Yellow interval.

• All-Red interval.

• Number of traffic lanes.

• Number and location of signal heads.

 Operational Guidelines 6
 

• Vehicle detector locations.

• Approach angles, speed limits, and directions.

• Street lighting.

• Approach grades and visual obstructions.

• Average daily and peak period traffic volumes.

• Proportion of tall or wide vehicles.

A sample assessment form that can be used as a guide for field inspections of problem sites 

can be found in Intersection Safety Issue Briefs (16).

Motorist Complaints and Comments 

Qualitative means to identify intersections where red light running is a frequent occurrence 

should also be employed by State and local agencies. Through the solicitation of inputs 

from motorists and from the general public, intersections where there are unique or changed 

conditions or where motorists have witnessed “near misses” that might not otherwise 

be identified from an analysis of crash data can be considered for further analysis and 

investigations. Written and oral complaints from motorists may be used as an input for 

determining intersections where there is a problem with red light running.

Engineering Study 

The State or local agency considering the use of a red light camera system should conduct 

an engineering study to determine the factors contributing to red light running and to identify 

appropriate countermeasures that could be implemented to reduce the number of crashes 

resulting from red light violations. Once identified, the appropriate effective countermeasures 

(engineering, education, and enforcement) should be considered in addressing the crash 

problem.

Section 4C.01 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires that an 

engineering study be conducted whenever the installation of a traffic signal is being considered 

(17). After a traffic signal is installed, traffic conditions may change and a high incidence of 

red light violations may occur, a changed condition that warrants attention by traffic engineers 

and traffic safety professionals. Engineering studies should be fully documented in preparation 

for any questions or concerns about proposed photo enforcement camera installation. The 

documentation should include a full description of the operation of the intersection, assessed 

throughout the day. The engineering study must also review pedestrian and bicycle conditions 

at the intersection. For further discussion on the engineering studies, refer to the MUTCD at 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/. For a complete description of the steps in an engineering study, 

please refer to ITE’s Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies (18).

7 Red Light Camera Systems 
CHAPTER IV. COUNTERMEASURES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS 

Over the last decade, considerable efforts have been made to mitigate red light running 

behavior by motorists in the United States. Research has shown that engineering 

improvements (9, 11, 19), safety education and increased enforcement by law 

enforcement officers (12, 20) can significantly reduce red light violations. In addition, to 

supplement traditional law enforcement activities, many jurisdictions have implemented 

automated enforcement red light camera systems.

The solution to the problem of red light running and resulting crashes may require one or a 

combination of engineering, education, and enforcement measures.

• Intersection Engineering Improvements

Engineering solutions to be considered include, but are not limited to, modifying traffic 

signal timing, improving signing and marking, improving sight lines, modifying grades 

and/or grade separation, adjusting the prevailing speeds, changes in surface treatments, 

altering lane configuration, and replacing the traffic signal with some other form of traffic 

control device or intersection type.

• Education

A well-designed public information and education campaign will assist motorists and 

the general public in understanding the safety issues inherent to red light running. It will 

provide information and data that explain what red light running is, why red light running 

is dangerous, and what actions are currently being undertaken to reduce the incidence of 

red light running.

• Traditional Enforcement By Law Enforcement Officers

Traditional enforcement efforts by law enforcement officers specifically targeting red 

light running violators can be a cost effective deterrent in reducing red light violations at 

problem intersections. 

• Red Light Camera Systems 

Red light camera systems can be a cost effective tool to reduce red light violations. Red 

light camera systems should be part of a comprehensive intersection safety program, 

which considers all countermeasures to reduce fatal and injury crashes at intersections.

An engineering study should consider each of these possible solutions in order to identify the 

most appropriate solution to the documented problem at the intersection.

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 

Intersection design deficiencies may contribute to red light running and crashes at signalized 

intersections. The deficiencies may be mitigated by engineering improvements of two 

types: traffic operation (including signal control) improvements, and intersection geometry 

improvements.

Traffic Operation and Signal Control 

At a minimum, retiming of the traffic signal should be analyzed as a red light running 

countermeasure. Signal timing should be reviewed regularly to determine if it is still appropriate 

 Operational Guidelines 8
 

for the traffic conditions in effect, and changed if the need for a change is indicated. 

Traffic signal timing, especially the length of the yellow and all-red interval times, should be 

in accordance with the broad guidelines in the MUTCD (17) and due consideration should be 

given to the informational report developed by ITE (9), which discusses methods for determining 

vehicle signal change and clearance intervals. In addition, any applicable State and local 

agency policies and procedures should also be followed.

The following list identifies possible engineering countermeasures to reduce incidences of red 

light running:

• Improving Signal Head Visibility

Signal head visibility can be improved by increasing the size of the traffic signal lamps 

from 8 to 12 inches. Improving signal visibility can be especially beneficial on streets that 

run in an east-to-west direction where the sun angle silhouettes the traffic signal head 

making it difficult to see the signal indication. The addition of backplates can also make 

signals more visible.

• Additional Signal Heads

Depending on the intersection and the number and visibility of signals currently deployed, 

adding signal heads may help decrease the frequency of red light violations. If a single 

signal head is used for multiple lanes, such as two through lanes, the signal may be 

blocked from view of a motorist if traveling behind or along side a truck or other high 

profile vehicle. A similar situation may occur when the traffic signal pole and head are 

located on the corner of an intersection.

• All-Red Interval

An all-red clearance interval provides additional time for motorists already in the 

intersection to proceed through the intersection on the red indication while holding cross 

traffic on the cross street approaches. The red clearance interval is not intended to 

reduce the incidence of red light running; rather it is a safety measure. 

The MUTCD indicates that the length of the all-red interval should be a function of traffic 

speed, cross street width, and length of the yellow interval (17). The MUTCD guidance 

is that the clearance interval should not exceed six seconds in length. Typically where 

used, the length of an all-red interval is one second to not more than three seconds.

• Appropriate Yellow Times

The purpose of the yellow interval is to warn approaching traffic of the imminent change 

in the assignment of right-of-way. The length of the yellow interval is determined in 

such a way that it provides enough time for a vehicle to travel at its prevailing speed 

through the intersection before the traffic signal turns red or to allow a driver to stop at 

a comfortable average deceleration before entering the intersection. Therefore, the 

likelihood of a motorist running a red light increases as the yellow interval is shortened. 

Lengthening the yellow interval, within appropriate guidelines, has been shown to 

significantly reduce the number of inadvertent red light violations (11).

The length of the yellow intervals should be in accordance with MUTCD guidelines (17) 

and applicable State and local agency policies and procedures. The ITE informational 

report (9) contains more detailed discussion of methods for the calculation of appropriate 

clearance intervals for specific circumstances.

9 Red Light Camera Systems 
• Signalized Intersection Warning Signs

Advance warning signs are posted upstream on an intersection approach to alert 

motorists that they are nearing a signalized intersection. Advance warning signs are 

especially beneficial at intersections with curved approaches or those with steep grades.

• Advanced Yellow Flashing Lights

Consideration should be given to the use of advanced yellow flashing lights as advance 

warning at intersections with high-speed approaches or limited sight distances. 

These traffic control devices are posted well in advance of an intersection and only 

flash at approaching motorists when the signal indication is likely to be red when the 

motorists reach the intersection. This operation is different than the typical flashing 

yellow light in advance of an intersection that simply warns of the existence of the 

signalized intersection. Advanced yellow flashing lights may provide the most benefit 

in slowing vehicles on steep grade approaches and larger vehicles with more mass and 

momentum.

Advanced warning flashers and their effect on red light violations were studied 

in Bloomington, Minnesota (21). The advanced warning flashers were used for 

approximately three months, during which red light running violation data was collected. 

It was determined that the installation of the advanced yellow flashing lights reduced red 

light violations significantly at the study intersection, with a greater reduction in truck red 

light violations.

• Adjusting the Approach Speed

Approach speeds are a critical determinant for the length of the yellow time at a 

signalized intersection. Speed limits on the approaches to a signalized intersection 

where there is a problem with red light running should be evaluated based on speed 

studies and observations. It may be necessary to consider additional speed-affecting 

measures in order to achieve the necessary result.

• Traffic Signal Coordination

A coordinated traffic signal operation where motorists are able to move smoothly in 

platoons from intersection to intersection reduces the risk of red light violations and 

collisions.

• Advance Vehicle Detection

Advance vehicle detection may be employed to hold green signal indications for the 

maximum allowable time, allowing motorists at the back of platoons or under light traffic 

conditions, to legally enter and traverse a signalized intersection.

• Removal of Unwarranted Traffic Signals

Low volume, signalized intersections may experience a reduction in red light violations 

and crashes when traffic signals are removed and alternative intersection designs or 

other forms of traffic control are implemented. Guidance on the signal removal process 

can be found in Section 4B.02 of the MUTCD (17).

 Operational Guidelines 10 
 

• Removal of On-Street Parking

The restriction of on-street parking for a distance of at least 200 feet from each 

intersection approach may enhance the driver visibility of signage, signals, pedestrians, 

cross-traffic, and other pertinent features near the intersection.

Other factors may serve to increase vehicle delays at signalized intersections and contribute 

to an increased frequency of red light running. Malfunctioning vehicle detection and signal 

actuating equipment, long phases or cycle lengths, or the use of protected left turn phases 

at times of the day when not required may serve to increase delays and, under certain 

circumstances, may cause motorists to engage in unsafe driving behavior by running red lights.

Intersection Geometry Changes 

Deficiencies in intersection configuration or geometry may increase the number of motorists 

unintentionally running red lights. Where intersection geometry deficiencies are identified and 

can be improved, appropriate changes should be designed, deployed, and evaluated. Design 

guidelines can be found in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 

2001 (22) and ITE publications: The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety (23), 

Traffic Engineering Handbook (24), and Toolbox on Intersection Safety and Design (25).

EDUCATION 

A well-designed public information and education campaign will assist motorists and the public 

in understanding the safety issues inherent to red light running. This campaign should provide 

information and data that defines the red light running problem, explains why red light running 

is dangerous, and identifies the actions that are currently being undertaken to reduce the 

incidence of red light running. One of the key messages for the red light running education 

campaign should be the fatality and injury consequences and resulting emotional and economic 

toll of red light running. The emotional toll of red light running to crash victims and their families 

is quite obvious; however, the indirect economic costs associated with red light running related 

crashes in terms of lost productivity, higher insurance premiums, and medical cost, while 

significant, are often not understood.

An on-going educational program should be designed to combat red light running, in general, 

and be delivered in a way so as to communicate the seriousness of the violation and the 

effectiveness of the countermeasures being employed. 

The on-going public information and education program should use various media, such as: 

posters, mailings, hand-outs, public service announcements on radio and television, warning 

notices, billboards, warning signs, press releases, slogans, and bumper stickers. The State 

or local agency should monitor the effectiveness of the educational program and modify it in 

order to achieve maximum effectiveness. A red light running education campaign supported by 

targeted enforcement by law enforcement agencies is a very effective tool. Red light running 

campaigns should be dovetailed with other traffic safety education and enforcement programs, 

such as speeding and other forms of aggressive driving.

ENFORCEMENT 

Law enforcement officers play an important role enforcing traffic laws and rules of the road 

violations, which includes red light violations. Red light camera systems are but one method of 

11 Red Light Camera Systems 
monitoring and enforcing red light violations, others involve the direct use of law enforcement 

officers. Alternative officer enforcement strategies include:

• Single Officer: to enforce red light violations, an officer takes an inconspicuous position 

at an intersection where the officer can clearly see the signal and motorist. After 

observing a violation, it may be necessary to follow the violator through the intersection 

in order to stop and cite the driver. 

• Dual Officer: a safer alternative, requiring a higher level of staff commitment, involves 

the use of separate observer and pursuit officers. The observer officer witnesses the 

violation and then radios the information to the pursuit officer who is typically located 

downstream of the signal and will stop the driver and issue the citation.

• Multiple Signal Head Enforcement: a traffic signal head or some other lighted device 

is attached to the reverse side of an existing traffic signal. This allows a single police 

officer to observe violations from the opposite side of the intersection and to enforce red 

light violations in greater safety.

• Random Enforcement: refers to the random selection of the locations to be enforced and 

this may be performed by either single or multiple officers. Random enforcement makes 

police presence visible and reminds drivers that enforcement is taking place.

• Targeted Enforcement: is when problem locations are identified and officer staff 

resources are committed to enforcement for a particular period. Such stepped up 

enforcement can work as a visible reminder to motorists that the traffic laws should not 

be violated.

 Operational Guidelines 12 
 

CHAPTER V. RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 

Ared light camera system is one of the measures available to traffic engineering, 

enforcement, and safety professionals, that when properly applied, may be effective in 

the reduction of certain types of collisions at signalized intersections. Red light camera 

systems have had the greatest success and highest levels of support in communities where they 

have been implemented as one element of an overall traffic safety management program. There 

are several key steps to successfully implementing a red light camera system program, which is 

the subject of this chapter.

EARLY PLANNING AND STARTUP 

The development of a successful red light camera program will be based on the systematic 

analysis of crash data, together with data on citations issued to motorists for red light running, 

where available, and inputs from the general public. The objective is to identify locations where 

red light running by motorists is contributing to crashes. 

The key elements recommended for the early planning and startup of a red light camera 

program are as follows:

• Establish a Steering Committee.

• Establish Program Objectives.

• Identify the Legal Requirements.

• Assess System Procurement Alternatives.

• Establish Public Awareness and Information Campaign.

Steering Committee of Stakeholder Group Representatives 

Any community considering the implementation of a red light camera system should first 

establish a steering committee inclusive of all stakeholders.

The Steering Committee serves to establish broad based program objectives and to monitor 

program results. The appropriate participants will vary by community and would typically include 

representatives from the following organizations:

• State Department of Motor Vehicles.

• State and local Police and Sheriff’s Department.

• Traffic Engineering Department.

• Public Works Department.

• City, County, or State’s Attorney’s Office.

• City, County, or State Public Information Office or Community Affairs.

• Judiciary.

• Photo Enforcement Services Contractor, if one is hired.

• Selected Community Representatives.

• Selected outside Agency Representatives, such as a local Automobile Club.

A high level of quality control and on-going coordination of activities is required for the operation 

and maintenance of photo enforcement systems. The program also has significant visibility with 

the community at large and with their elected officials that require coordination to effectively 

communicate the program’s objectives and program results.

13 Red Light Camera Systems 
Red Light Camera Program Objectives 

Early on the Steering Committee should define as clearly as possible the red light camera 

program objectives. While it is clear that the overall objective of any red light camera program 

is the reduction of collisions at signalized intersections resulting from red light running, program 

objectives should address specific operational needs.

Legal Requirements 

Prior to initiating a red light camera program, legal aspects and requirements should be 

identified. Red light camera systems pose legal questions and concerns, the answers to which 

may vary from State to State. In particular, privacy, citation distribution, and types of penalties 

need to be thoroughly addressed and resolved prior to the startup of a red light camera 

program.

Presently, there are two approaches that have been adopted by States in the deployment and 

operation of red light camera systems: 

• Driver Responsibility. Where the government entity alleges that a driver has committed 

a violation and receives a citation, there should be photographic evidence that allows 

the driver to be identified. This requires that one or more red light camera(s) is/are 

located so that a frontal view of the vehicle is recorded as it runs the red light. Further, 

the recorded view should allow the driver and vehicle identities to be clearly determined. 

If the recorded view of a driver is obstructed or not clear, no citation should be issued. 

Additionally, a method should be provided through which the registered owner can certify 

that he or she was not the driver at the time of the violation.

In States where red light camera systems are applied as described above, red light 

violations recorded by red light camera systems are considered to be moving violations 

with citations carrying the same penalties as citations issued by law enforcement 

officers, including “points” and holds on vehicle registration or driver license renewals for 

unpaid fines. 

• Registered Owner Responsibility. Where the registered owner is responsible for the 

citation, only photographic evidence that identifies the vehicle, usually from the rear, and 

its license number is required. Typically, States where red light camera systems have 

been adopted in this manner have enacted legislation at the State level that authorizes 

the use of red light camera systems or permits local agencies to enact local ordinances 

for use of red light camera systems.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) developed 

the “Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Model Law” (26) to offer clear guidance to States 

considering automated enforcement technology. 

Issues arising from legal challenges to automated photo enforcement are presented in 

Appendix A.

 Operational Guidelines 14 
 

System Procurement Alternatives 

There are a number of alternatives available to State and local agencies for the development 

and operation of red light camera programs. A State or local agency may take full responsibility 

for system operations and citation processing functions or elect to outsource these functions 

to a private contractor. Where a private contractor is responsible for installation and operation 

of the red light camera equipment, the State or local agency should establish the necessary 

procedures so that the agency has complete oversight and day-to-day supervision of the 

program. Table 1 summarizes selected alternatives for the acquisition, installation, operation, 

and maintenance of red light camera systems that are available to State and local agencies.

Where a private contractor is responsible for the processing of citations, compensation to private 

vendors based on the number of citations issued should be avoided. In multiple jurisdictions, 

the courts have determined that it is inappropriate for the private contractor to be responsible 

for determining installation locations and operation of the system because of an appearance 

of a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest should be avoided in all phases of the system 

installation and operation: startup, design, installation, operation, and maintenance. At all times, 

the State or local agency should verify and exercise complete oversight of all actions of the 

private contractor.

Some agencies are compensating their camera system vendors based on a flat fee per 

location per time period. Others have installed and operated their own systems. It may also 

be appropriate to pay a vendor to operate and maintain an agency-designed and -implemented 

system. Compensation should be based solely on the value of the equipment or the services 

provided.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize selected contractor payment options.

Public Awareness and Information Campaign 

Education on improving traffic safety is a crucial component for any significant change to occur 

with traffic control systems. Appropriate educational elements should be applied regardless 

of the chosen solution. For red light camera programs, often the initial educational program 

includes issuance of warning citations to likely violators for limited period, and clear public 

communication of the date on which warning citations will be halted and actual enforcement 

citations will begin. However, education and media outreach efforts should continue throughout 

the life of the program to keep the public informed of results and need for safety vigilance. 

Ongoing awareness of the presence of enforcement measures is key to deterrence and longterm behavior changes.

15 Red Light Camera Systems 
 Operational Guidelines 16 

Table 1. Selected Red Light Camera System Acquisition, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Alternatives

Project 

Planning and 

Management

Equipment 

Ownership

Design and 

Installation

Plan 

Check and 

Installation 

Inspection

Operation 

and 

Maintenance

Citation 

Data 

Processing

Decision 

To Issue 

Citation

Violator 

Inquires

Public 

Information 

Program

OPTION AState/LocalAgencyPrivateContractorOPTION BState/LocalAgencyPrivateContractorOPTION CState/LocalAgencyPrivateContractorOPTION DState/LocalAgencyPrivateContractor
 

Table 2. Payment Options for Contractor Owned and Operated Red Light Camera Systems

 Payment Option Equipment Equipment 

Installation

Equipment 

Maintenance

Citation 

Data 

Processing

Initial Fixed Price Payment 

Initial Fixed Price Payment and 

Fixed Monthly Payments 

Fixed Monthly Payments

Initial Fixed Price Payment and Per 

Citation Payments

Per Citation Payments

Initial Fixed Price Payment and 

Fixed Monthly Payment Schedule, 

Depending On Pre-Determined 

Low/High Number of Citations 

Issued

Fixed Monthly Payment Schedule, 

Depending On Pre-Determined 

Low/High Number of Citations 

Issued 

Time Worked and Materials Used 

Table 3. Payment Options for Agency Owned and Contractor Operated Red Light 

Camera Systems

 Payment Option Equipment 

Maintenance

Citation 

Data 

Processing

Fixed Monthly Payments

Fixed Monthly/Per Citation Payments

Per Citation Payments

Fixed Monthly Payment Schedule, Depending On Pre-Determined 

Low/High Number of Citations Issued 

Time Worked and Materials Used 

17 Red Light Camera Systems 
A red light camera program should not be started without a comprehensive public awareness 

and information campaign. Research has indicated that public information campaigns are a key 

to the success of the red light camera programs (27).

In 1995, FHWA sponsored a study examining the public’s awareness of community-based 

safety programs. The study concluded that an information campaign needed to accomplish 

three objectives in connection with the implementation of red light camera programs. First, 

public awareness and information should make citizens more aware of their driving habits and 

safety consequences of running red light. This should stimulate a voluntary change in behavior 

at signalized intersections. Second, communications should be through a variety of media 

with the public and elected officials to explain program objectives, as well as program results. 

This is critical to gain public support for program expansion. Lastly, public awareness and 

information should provide motorists with advance warning that there is increased enforcement. 

This, by itself, may cause a change in driver behavior, but should describe the effectiveness 

of the systems. Without an effective educational campaign, motorists may be surprised or 

confused when they receive a citation. If questions or concerns can be effectively answered 

through written, telephone, or web-based information, motorists receiving citations will be more 

supportive of the program and less likely to question the program’s overall objectives.

The public awareness and information campaign should encompass the following elements:

• Clear description of the operation of the red light camera equipment in non-technical 

terms.

• Clear statement of the program objectives.

• Description of the advantages of automated enforcement.

• Explanation of other measures being taken to improve safety at intersections.

• Description of the use of the red light camera program revenues.

The public awareness and information campaign may be developed using the following 

methods: 

• Outreach efforts to employers, schools, driver education, local community groups, and all 

area media.

• Telephone and web-based information centers that include a hot-line for calls about 

intersection problems and traffic safety concerns, in addition to handling inquires 

regarding the operation of the red light camera program.

Public awareness and information campaigns are frequently used prior to and during the 

development of a red light camera program. The campaigns often employ a variety of methods 

in an effort to reach as many citizens as possible. The extent of the campaigns, however, 

varies among the jurisdictions where red light camera systems have been deployed. Table 4 

identifies some of the more commonly used methods to increase public awareness and provide 

information.

 Operational Guidelines 18 
 

Table 4. Public Awareness and Education Campaign Elements Used by Selected Red 

Light Camera Programs 

Jurisdiction

PostersMailingsHand outsMediaWarning NoticesBillboardsWarning SignsPress ReleasesSlogansBumper Stickers

Charlotte, NC

Fairfax, VA

Howard County, MD

Lincoln, NE

New York City, NY

Oxnard, CA

Polk County, FL

Sacramento, CA

San Francisco, CA

San Diego, CA

An important aspect of the public awareness and information campaign is the direction 

provided for individuals who received citations on how to review their citation and/or view the 

photographic evidence.

It is also important for the success of the red light camera program that traffic court officials, 

including judges, commissioners, and administrative support personnel, be fully informed 

about the program scope and operation. Officials who often conduct traffic court hearings 

may not be fully versed in the operation of the red light camera equipment. It is important that 

the appropriate documentation is prepared and submitted in a timely manner in the event an 

individual contests the citation in court. The increased use of electronic data transfers and 

viewing may be appropriate to ensure that the court packages are readily available when 

needed.

Public awareness and educational outreach efforts for employers, schools, driver education 

programs, and local community groups, as well as the media, are necessary. Reports of 

program results, emphasizing the achieved safety benefits, should be available and posted 

on the program web site and local newspapers. The campaign should employ various 

communications media designed to reach residents and commuters, including regular surveys 

to gauge public support and awareness, and should focus on a central message of improving 

traffic safety. An example of a safety message is to emphasize that red light camera systems 

can be applied as an effective tool to reduce collisions resulting from red light running.

19 Red Light Camera Systems 
SYSTEM PLANNING 

Proper planning by a State or local agency will establish the foundation for a successful red light 

camera system for detecting and documenting red light running at signalized intersections. As 

appropriate, a State or local agency should solicit assistance from other public agencies where 

red light camera programs have been successfully deployed, as well as from qualified consulting 

engineers with experience in red light camera systems design and operations.

Violations Processing Procedure 

The violation processing procedure should address the following aspects of the installation and 

operation of the red light camera system, and the processing of the recorded violations and 

citations issued:

• Establish the enforcement threshold consistent with traditional enforcement methods. 

• The number of days allowable from the date of the violation occurrence before citations 

can be mailed, if different from applicable legal requirements.

• How citations for commercial or rental car vehicles will be addressed.

• Minimum vehicle speed threshold.

• Should citation issuance be restricted to specific time periods or days of week only?

• Maximum number of days before citations are reissued to violators following registered 

owners disputed responsibility and subsequent violator identification.

• Guidelines for pitch measurement where inductive loops are employed for vehicle 

detection. 

• Clear specification of photographic data requirements for issuing citations, including the 

red signal indication and the time elapsed since onset of red.

The system design and installation should be consistent with the definition of a violation under 

the applicable State and/or local laws. 

The installation should be consistent with other neighboring intersections under the jurisdiction 

of the responsible agency, so that vehicle operators are held to a uniform standard throughout 

the jurisdiction.

Site Selection 

Sites selected for the installation of red light camera systems should be based on accurate crash 

and red light violations data. As discussed earlier, data regarding the total number of crashes 

may be used, although intersections with high numbers of collisions may not have a high number 

of crashes related to red light running. Violation data needs to be applied with some caution. 

Likewise, locations where it is known that there are high numbers of red light violations may not 

have corresponding high numbers of crashes related to the red light running. Heavily traveled 

intersections where there are heavy left turn movements operated on protected left turn phases 

 Operational Guidelines 20 
 

are often intersections of this type. Traffic volumes, except when used as a factor to determine 

the incidence of crashes or violations, are not a suitable measure for selecting locations for the 

installation of red light camera systems.

The installation of a red light camera system at a signalized intersection identified as having 

a red light running problem should be done when an engineering study of the intersection 

determines photo enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure to reduce the incidence of red 

light running.

Other criteria for red light camera system site selection may include recommendations from law 

enforcement and traffic safety professionals, citizens’ complaints, and input from community 

groups. These criteria should be considered in conjunction with crash data and violations or 

citations data. 

Undesirable characteristics that will also affect decisions regarding the installation of red light 

camera systems include:

• Driveways that restrict camera pole or auxiliary flash placement.

• Approaches that are more than three lanes wide and double left turn lanes where views 

are more frequently obstructed.

• Wide crossing streets where second photographs may not be taken at the predetermined location due to motorists speeding up and slowing down as they traverse the 

intersection.

When red light camera systems are in operation, law enforcement officials should place 

an emphasis on routine enforcement of traffic laws and regulations that require visible and 

unobstructed display of license plates.

Warning Signs 

Signs warning motorists that red light cameras are being used are typically required by law or 

ordinance but, whether required or not, should be posted as part of the driver awareness and 

education process. These warning signs may be placed in the following locations at photoenforced intersections:

• In advance of photo-enforced intersections.

• At photo-enforced intersections, typically on the far side traffic signal pole.

• On all approaches into an area where red light camera systems are used for red light 

running.

Warning signs placed on all approaches into an area, while used to satisfy legal requirements 

in some jurisdictions, are appropriate as supplemental warning signs but not as the primary 

warning for motorists. Advance warning signs should be installed at photo-enforced 

intersections.

All advance warning signs should be clearly visible and compliant with the MUTCD (17).

21 Red Light Camera Systems 
Traffic Signal Yellow Times 

The MUTCD and ITE recommended practice on the length of yellow interval times provides 

adequate and proper direction to practitioners. Yellow times should be established in 

accordance with the MUTCD (17) guidelines and the ITE (9) informational report for methods for 

calculating yellow time intervals.

Changes in the yellow times after red light camera systems are in place and operational will 

affect the number of photographed violations, increasing the number of violations when yellow 

times are shortened and reducing the number of violations when yellow times are lengthened. 

Where changes in the yellow times at intersections with red light camera systems are required 

as the result of updated speed surveys or other factors, the changes should be clearly described 

in public information announcements. Providing warning notices for a reasonable amount of 

time after the change is particularly important for violations recorded at intersections where the 

yellow interval has been shortened.

System Selection and Technologies 

The most widely used red light camera systems employ film-based cameras and inductive loop 

vehicle detection technologies. However, other red light camera technologies have become 

available over the past five years, most notably technologies that employ digital camera 

equipment where photographic data, including streamed video clips, may be immediately 

downloaded for processing using leased telephone line or microwave communications. 

Additionally, red light camera systems that use video-based and radar vehicle detection 

methods, as well as systems that employ overhead camera placements and floodlighting 

equipment as an alternative to the curb-based placements, are used by many State and local 

agencies.

A red light camera system consists of the following on-the-street components: 

• Camera Units.

• Intersection Lighting.

• Camera Housing and Supporting Structure.

• Vehicle Detection.

• Communications.

• Warning Signs.

Each of these components is reviewed in the following sections.

Camera Unit 

There are three general types of cameras units used to automatically record red light violations. 

The types of camera units used in red light camera systems include:

• 35mm Conventional Film Units.

• Digital Still Picture Units.

• Digital Video Units.

Each type has both pros and cons, as shown in table 5.

Operational Guidelines 22 
 

Table 5. Camera Units Compared 

Camera Unit Pros Cons 

35 mm Best resolution Collection and development of 

film

Digital Still

Digital format

Ease of use

No film collection or development.

Needs communication links 

between cameras and processing 

center

Comparatively poor resolution

Digital Video

Provide video clips of alleged 

violations

Provides circumstances in which 

violations occur

Impression of surveillance

Needs communication links 

between cameras and processing 

center

Intersection Lighting 

Additional intersection lighting is required in conjunction with the operation of the camera units. 

The additional lighting will need to be installed in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s 

specifications, as well as with State or local ordinances that govern the amount of lighting that is 

permitted in the driver’s field of view.

For camera units that record violations with one or two photographs or digital images, flash 

units synchronized with the camera shutter provide additional lighting at the intersection at time 

of exposure so vehicle license plate and drivers, if local or State law allow, can be more clearly 

photographed. Typically, one flash unit is installed as an integral part of the camera housing. 

Additional flash units may be installed at intersections where there are more than two lanes 

being monitored or to maximize the amount of backlighting in the vehicle interior as it traverses 

the intersection.

For camera units that record a video clip for each violation, continuous additional lighting will 

be considered. This may be provided by curb or overhead mounted lighting equipment, as 

specified by the equipment manufacturer.

Camera Housing and Supporting Structure 

The types of camera housing and supporting structures will depend on the type of red light 

camera system being installed.

Curb-mounted red light camera systems, the most common type currently being employed by 

State and local agencies, need a camera housing enclosure that is mounted on a pole. The 

camera unit housing should be weather and damage resistant, and contain a locking mechanism 

to protect the system from vandalism. Additional poles may be employed for auxiliary flash 

lighting units. For digital camera systems, a separate enclosure for the data storage and 

communications equipment is also required at the intersection.

The poles for curb-mounted red light camera systems should be tall enough to provide the 

necessary angle of view to clearly record violations at the intersection. There are at least two 

types of poles currently in use. The first, a hinged pole, lowers the camera housing on a hinge 

23 Red Light Camera Systems 
located in the center of the pole. A second type, a solid pole, utilizes a motorized “elevator” to 

raise and lower the camera housing.

Overhead-mounted red light camera systems normally require curb-mounted poles with 

cantilever arms extending over the traffic lanes. Camera and flash units are mounted on the 

cantilever arms as required for system operation. Red light camera systems of this type provide 

an increased field of view that is especially advantageous for red light camera systems on wider 

arterial streets as well as enhanced lighting for enhanced photographic data quality.

Some jurisdictions have found that they can afford only a limited number of red light camera 

systems. By installing red light camera housings at problem intersections, and periodically 

moving the actual cameras from housing to housing, gives motorists the impression that 

cameras are omnipresent and reduces red light violations throughout the community.

Vehicle Detection 

Vehicle detectors are used to trigger the camera to record a vehicle running a red light. Different 

vehicle detection technologies are available for this purpose.

Most red light camera systems employ pairs of inductive loops installed near the intersection at a 

location suitable for showing that a violation has occurred. It is critical for the system design and 

operation that the inductive loops be installed in the appropriate locations, consistent with the 

agency’s definition of a violation. Red light camera systems may also employ piezoelements, 

video-based equipment, or radar devices for vehicle detection and tracking, as an alternative to, 

or in conjunction with, inductive loop detectors.

The placement of the vehicle detectors is critical to the integrity of the red light camera system 

and the citations developed from the photographic data.

For red light camera systems that document violations with two photographs, the first 

photograph should be taken to show the motor vehicle that will be running the red light, at a 

location immediately before it enters the intersection against a red traffic signal indication. The 

vehicle detection equipment should be configured to detect the presence of the vehicle at the 

desired location and to initiate the first photograph being taken with the vehicle at that location. 

If the vehicle is detected after it has already entered the intersection, it cannot be determined 

with certainty from the photographs that the vehicle entered the intersection illegally and 

consequently, a citation should not be issued. The second photograph is taken after the vehicle 

has entered the intersection, at a time interval after the first photograph calculated to provide the 

best view of the vehicle and its license plate, and where required, the driver’s face.

For red light camera systems that document violations with video clips that show the vehicle 

running the red light continuously starting at a location before the vehicle enters the intersection 

against the red traffic signal indication, vehicle detection should be configured so that the video 

clip recording is initiated at an appropriate location.

The placement of inductive loop detectors immediately in advance of the intersection stop line 

for vehicle detection may require that existing stop line loop detectors used for the traffic signal 

operations need to be abandoned, relocated, or replaced with another type of vehicle detection 

system, such as video-based detection. Generally, a solution that accommodates vehicle 

detection requirements for both traffic signal operations and the red light camera system can be 

 Operational Guidelines 24 
 

developed although there may be some additional costs for vehicle detection associated with the 

installation of the red light camera system equipment under these circumstances.

Communications 

For digital camera units, a communications link with adequate bandwidth should be provided 

from the intersection to a location where the violations data is processed. The required 

communications may be implemented using State and local agency fiber optics, leased highcapacity telephone lines, or microwave technologies.

No communications outside of the intersection are required for 35mm conventional film camera 

units. 

Communications links are normally required to support certain functions related to citation 

data processing, including access to vehicle registration and driver’s license databases, data 

transfers to and from traffic court data processing systems, and on-line inquiries or payments 

from persons receiving citations.

Warning Signs 

Refer to page 21 for guidance on warning signs.

ENGINEERING DESIGN OF RED LIGHT CAMERA SYSTEMS 

The red light camera system installation plans should be prepared and signed by an 

appropriately licensed engineer. Installation plans should be prepared in accordance with the 

system manufacturer’s standard plans and technical specifications, and with State and local 

agency standard plans and specifications for public works and traffic engineering improvements. 

The plans should address the placement of the red light camera system equipment and related 

components, including:

• Camera equipment.

• Camera housing and supporting structure.

• Intersection lighting.

• Vehicle detection system.

• Communications.

• Pullboxes, conduit runs, and conductor schedule.

• Electrical service.

• Warning signs.

There are currently no standard plans and specifications for the acquisition and installation of 

red light camera systems, except for the plans and specifications provided by the manufacturers 

and standard plans and specifications that have been developed by State and local agencies 

for their own use and application. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), through 

a cooperative agreement with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), are 

developing red light camera systems performance specifications and testing laboratories to 

ensure the accuracy and reliability of these systems.

The installation plans should be processed through the appropriate State or local agency plan 

review and permitting procedures.

25 Red Light Camera Systems 
RED LIGHT CAMERA SYSTEM INSTALLATION 

Where a contractor does the installation work, the normal construction inspection procedures 

employed by the State or local agency should be carried out for the installation of the red light 

camera equipment. Proper installation includes:

• Installation consistent with the equipment manufacturer’s guidelines and State or local 

agency specifications.

• Inspection of all installation work by State and local agency officials and, where 

necessary, by the project engineer. 

• Testing of the red light camera equipment prior to its cutover for unattended operation.

• The preparation of as-built drawings that reflect actual construction conditions.

Installations should be thoroughly inspected before testing begins. A comprehensive testing 

program should then be conducted using both simulated and actual traffic before the system 

is placed into unattended operation. No warning letters or citations should be issued until it is 

determined that the system is working accurately and reliably.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

As with any integrated system, every element of a red light camera system should function 

properly for the system to produce the desired results. In addition to proper design and 

installation, procedures to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of the system should 

be developed and implemented by the State and local agency.

Proper operation should be consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions and the documented 

operational procedures that have been developed, reviewed, and approved by all parties 

involved. Periodic checks and audits to verify that it continues to operate properly should also 

be conducted.

Proper maintenance should include both preventive and corrective maintenance. Preventive 

maintenance should be performed on a regular basis. Tests of operational performance should 

be conducted regularly, and actual operational results examined constantly in order to identify 

any variation from specified performance. If any flaw in the system operation or performance is 

detected, the issuance of citations should be immediately stopped and any citations previously 

issued with the possibility of flawed operation or performance should be withdrawn.

Red light camera system operations and maintenance should include the following tasks and 

functions:

• Collect images of recorded violations and related violations data from photo-enforced 

intersections.

• Inspect camera and vehicle detection system operations.

• Perform preventative maintenance and cleaning.

• Identify defective equipment and make repairs or replace the equipment.

• Store recorded violations data.

 Operational Guidelines 26 
 

• Review recorded violations data to identify violations.

• Identify vehicle registered owner.

• Prepare draft citations for review and approval.

• Prepare and mail citations to vehicle registered owners.

• Answer telephone inquiries.

• Schedule violator appointments.

• Process vehicle registered owner certifications regarding driver identity at the time of the 

violation.

• Provide court-requested information and support court hearings.

• Prepare monthly progress reports.

Citation Data Processing 

The procedures and methods employed for system operations should be designed to ensure the 

preservation of the chain of custody of evidence for each recorded violation so that backup data 

and documentation can be easily retrieved when needed. The procedures and methods used 

for system operations should be comprehensive, clearly documented in writing, and followed 

without exception.

Citation data processing should be carried out in a secured facility using a data processing 

system with appropriate security features and firewalls. All personnel, especially those with 

access to motor vehicle registration and driver’s license databases, should be cleared with 

appropriate background checks.

Internal quality control is essential and should be achieved by the use of two separate internal 

reviews of each violation, periodic audits by independent law enforcement or engineering staff, 

and other procedures. Procedures, especially important to ensure quality control, should be 

developed for each of the following areas:

• Guidelines to be applied for issuing a citation. In other words, a very specific definition is 

needed to identify what constitutes a red light running violation.

• Citation review and approval requirements, including provisions for the procedure to be 

used when the time to review is shortened, traffic officers are not available to conduct 

the reviews, or the number of citations is larger than usual.

• Quality assurance audits, to be conducted by trained traffic officers for randomly 

selected sample of recorded violations on a periodic basis. 

Only a qualified law enforcement officer should be authorized to issue a citation. Citations 

should not be created prior to review of appropriate evidentiary material by the officer. Under 

no circumstances should a citation be issued when the officer expresses any lack of confidence 

that a properly documented and provable violation has occurred.

27 Red Light Camera Systems 
System Maintenance 

Periodic inspections and preventative maintenance should be required to ensure that the 

equipment is functioning properly. Service and inspection logs should be maintained to 

document the inspections and preventative maintenance activities. The service and inspection 

logs may be required at court hearings to confirm that the red light camera equipment was 

functioning properly at the time that the violations were recorded.

As part of the periodic preventative maintenance, the camera unit and housing should be 

thoroughly cleaned and the camera unit activated in its “test” mode and confirmed to be 

operating correctly. The condition of the camera housing and mounting structure, camera unit, 

vehicle detection system, and warning signs should be inspected and the conditions noted in the 

service and inspection logs.

On-Going System Assessment 

Continual analysis of violation and crash data, with community input, is an important element 

of a successful red light camera program. Adequate funding should be provided to assure the 

necessary data analysis, problem identification, and problem diagnostic review work tasks are 

undertaken.

Red light running camera enforcement efforts should be monitored, with adequate pre- and postinstallation study periods, in order to measure the program’s effectiveness. Timely collection 

and reporting of crash data is an important part of the monitoring process, as are control sites 

with no photo enforcement so the effects of camera enforcement can be distinguished from 

other external effects.

The steering committee should meet on a regular basis. Regular agenda items should be 

to review the data of violations and citations issued with a discussion of any changes or 

trends noted. Input from the State or local agency’s traffic engineering department and street 

maintenance department should include regular updates on planned traffic signal modifications 

or street improvements construction that could impact the operation of the system. Discussion 

should be encouraged on whether program objectives are being met through the deployment of 

red light camera systems or whether alternative measures should be applied. The group should 

have input to the regular prioritization of intersections targeted for safety-related improvements.

A monitoring program based on the timely collection and reporting of crash data is needed. 

These crash data should include control sites with no photo enforcement so that the effects 

of camera enforcement can be distinguished from other external effects. Responsibilities 

for the collection and reporting of crash data need to be established and clearly defined. 

Traffic safety professionals need to review intersection safety issues and conduct diagnostic 

reviews of intersections identified from the crash data tabulations as warranting safety-related 

improvements.

Regular reports on the public awareness and information campaign should be prepared and 

reviewed. Public use of the web site and telephone information systems should be monitored. 

 Operational Guidelines 28 
 

ON-GOING PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION 

An on-going public information and education campaign is needed to assure the motoring public 

that the red light running camera program is being operated in the most effective, efficient, and 

fair manner possible. Public information and education efforts begin before installation, but do 

not end when the system is fully operational.

The on-going educational program should be designed to combat red light running, in general, 

as well as to provide information related to the operation of the red light camera equipment. 

Where possible, the on-going public information and education program should be developed 

and delivered in a way so as to address any specific populations or conditions that have been 

identified as contributing extensively to the red light running problem.

The on-going public information and education program should use various media, including 

the print and broadcast media, to communicate the problem, the program and the results. 

The agency should monitor the effectiveness of the educational program in order to achieve 

maximum effectiveness and public support for the red light camera program.

29 Red Light Camera Systems 
REFERENCES 

1. Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras, Publication No. FHWA-SA-03-018, Federal Highway

Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, March

2003.

2. Hugh W. McGee and Kimberly A. Eccles, “Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on

Crash Experience”, NCHRP Synthesis 310, National Cooperative Highway Research

Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.

3. F. M. Council, B. Persaud, K. Eccles, and C. Lyon, “Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras”

FHWA Publication No., FHWA-HRT-05-048, November 2004.

4. Federal Highway Administration, “Association of Selected Intersection Factors with Red-lightrunning Crashes,” ITE Journal, Vol. 70, No. 7, July 2000, pp. 37-42.

5. R. A. Retting, A.F. Williams, D.F. Preusser and H.B. Weinstein, “Classifying Urban Crashes

for Countermeasure Development,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1995,

pp. 283-294.

6. J. M. Golob, S. Cho, J.P. Curry and T.F. Golob, Impacts of the San Diego Photo Red-light 

Enforcement System on Traffic Safety, Transportation Research Board Pre-print CD-ROM,

Washington, DC, January 2003.

7. Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red Light 

Running, Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers,

Washington, DC, 2003.

8. As cited by Insurance Institute of Highway Safety at https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-lightrunning. 

9. Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, An Informational Report of the

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prepared by ITE Technical Council Task Force

4TF-1ITE, Washington, DC, August 1994.

10. B.E. Porter and K. J. England, “Predicting Red-Light Running Behavior: A Traffic Safety

Study in Three Urban Settings,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp 1-8, 2000.

11. R.A. Retting and M.A. Greene, “Influence of Traffic Signal Timing on Red Light Running and

Potential Vehicle Conflicts at Urban Intersections,” Transportation Research Record 1595, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 1-7.

12. F.R. Hulscher, “The Problem of Stopping Drivers after the Termination of the Green Signal at

Traffic Lights,” Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 25, No. 3, March 1984, pp. 110-116.

13. Traffic Control Systems Handbook, Publication No. FHWA-SA-95-032, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington, DC, 1995.

 Operational Guidelines 30 
 

 

 

14. James H. Kell and Iris J. Fullerton Eds., Manual of Traffic Signal Design, 2nd Ed., Institute of 

Transportation Engineers/Prentice Hall, Washington, DC, 1998.

15. L. Evans and R.W. Rothery, “Influence of Vehicle Size and Performance on Intersection 

Saturation Flow,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Transportation and 

Traffic Theory, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, 1983.

16. Intersection Safety Issue Briefs, Federal Highway Administration and Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, April 2004. 

http://www.ite.org/library/IntersectionSafety/BreifingSheets.pdf

17. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003.

18. H. Douglas Robertson, Ed., Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2000.

19. H. S. Stein, “Traffic Signal Change Intervals: Policies, Practices and Safety,” Transportation 

Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1986, pp.433-445.

20. T.M. Tarawneh, V.A. Singh, and P.T. McCoy, “Investigation of Effectiveness of Media 

Advertising and Police Enforcement in Reducing Red Light Violations,” Transportation 

Research Record 1693, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 

Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 37-45.

21. B.B. Farraher, R. Weinholzer, and M. P. Kowski, The Effect of Advanced Warning Flashers 

on Red Light Running: A Study Using Motion Imaging Recording System Technology 

at Trunk Highway 169 and Pioneer Trail in Bloomington, Minnesota. In 69th ITE Annual 

Meeting, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1999.

22. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2001.

23. The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

Washington, DC, 1999.

24. James L. Pline, Ed., Traffic Engineering Handbook, 5th Ed., Institute of Transportation 

Engineers, Washington, DC, 1999.

25. Toolbox on Intersection Safety and Design, Institute of Transportation Engineers and 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, September 2004.

26. National Committee of Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Automated Traffic Law 

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

27. John F. McFadden and Hugh W. McGee, Synthesis and Evaluation of Red Light Running 

Automated Enforcement Programs in the United States, Publication No. FHWA-A-IF-00-004, 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1999.

31 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Agent, K.R. and D. Wagner, Evaluation of Red Light Running Campaign, Report KTC-96-29, 

Kentucky Transportation Center, December 1996, pp. 1-39.

Automated Enforcement in Transportation, Institute for Transportation Engineers, Washington, 

DC, December 1999. 

“Beep, Smash, Thud: Traffic Engineering Methods to Reduce Urban Crashes,” Status Report, 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Vol. 33, No. 4, May 2, 1998, pp. 1–7.

Blackburn, R.R. and D.T. Gilbert, “Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws,” National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program: Synthesis of Highway Practice 219, Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 1-68.

Bonneson, J. and Zimmerman, K. “Effect of Yellow Interval Timing On Red-Light Violation 

Frequency at Urban Intersections,” Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A & M University, 

Transportation Research Record, Washington, D.C., 2004.

Burris, M. and R. Apparaju, Assessment of Automated Photo Enforcement Systems for Polk 

County Signalized Intersection Safety Improvement Project, Center for Urban Transportation 

Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, September 25, 1998.

Butler, J.A., “Another View on Vehicle Change Intervals,” ITE Journal, Vol. 53, No. 3, March 

1983, pp. 44-48.

California State Auditor, Red-light Camera Programs: Although They Have Contributed to a 

Reduction in Accidents, Operational Weaknesses Exist at the Local Level, Bureau of State 

Audits, Sacramento, California, July 2002.

Chin, H. C., “Effect of Automatic Red-light Cameras on Red-Light Running,” Traffic Engineering 

and Control, Vol. 30, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 175–179.

City of Charlotte, North Carolina, http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/transportation/

special+programs/city+ ordinance.asp. 

City of Toledo, Ohio. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/srlr/pdf/Leg_Ohio.pdf

Curry, James, “Enforcement and Technology Innovations”, Proceedings of the 1997 International 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Conference, Conference, Seattle, Washington, July 1997.

Datta, T. K., K. Schattler, and S. Datta, “Red Light Violations and Crashes at Urban 

Intersections,” Transportation Research Record 1734, Paper No. 00-0480, January 2000, pp. 

1-26. 

Erickson, G., “Digital Traffic Cameras,” Traffic Technology International, 1996, pp. 332–336.

Fleck, J. L., and B. B. Smith, “Can We Make Red Light Runners Stop? Red Light Photo 

Enforcement in San Francisco, California,” Transportation Research Record 1693, 

 Operational Guidelines 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 46-49.

Frisch, Al, “LA’s Metro - Innovations In Grade Crossing Safety”, Transit Policing, Volume 3,

Number 2, Fall 1993.

Gilbert, Daniel T., Nina J. Sines, and Brandon E. Bell, “Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement,”

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Legal Research Digest, Number 36, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, December, 1996.

Hansen, G. A., “Human Factors in Transportation: Use of Automated Traffic Enforcement 

Technology to Modify Driving Behavior,” In Transportation Research Board 78th Annual Meeting. 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, January 1999, pp. 

1–15.

Hasson, P., “Red Lights Mean Stop,” Midwest Resource Center, Federal Highway Administration, 

2000, http://mrc.fhwa.dot.gov/articles/redlight.htm.

Hill, S. and Lindly, J. “Speed Red Light Running Prediction And Analysis.” Department of Civil 

and Environmental Engineering, The University of Alabama, Transportation Research Record, 

Washington, D.C., 2004.

Houston-Galveston Area Council, Greater Houston Metropolitan Safety Planning Program: 2004 

Status Report, February 17, 2004, pp.1-37.

Hubaud, Lou and Linda Meadow. “Los Angeles Metro Blue Line Enforcement Program”, Final

Report, Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, Research Needs Workshop, Report

Number DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-12.2, January 1996.

Insurance Institute for Public Safety, “Red Light Cameras Yield Big Reductions in Crashes and

Injuries”, Status Report, Volume 36, No. 4, April 28, 2001. 

Kendall, S. “Is Automate Enforcement Constitutional?”, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 

2004.

Kraus, E., and Quiroga, C. “Red Light Running Trends In Texas,” Texas Transportation Institute, 

The Texas A & M University, Transportation Research Record, Washington, D.C., 2004.

Lawson, S.D., “Automatic Surveillance and Red-Light running: Potential for Camera Use and 

Accident Reduction at High-Risk Light-Controlled Junctions,” Traffic Engineering and Control, 

January 1992, pp. 10-12.

Lawson, S.D., H.T. Morris, R.W. Hardy, and A.C. Howard, Red Light Running and Surveillance 

Cameras – Policy Issues Related to Accident Reduction and Enforcement.

Meadow, Linda, “Los Angeles Metro Blue Line Grade Crossing Safety Improvement Program,”

Proceedings of the 1993 National Conference on Highway-Rail Safety, St. Louis, Missouri. July

11-14, 1993.

Meadow, Linda, “Los Angeles Metro Blue Line Grade Crossing Safety Improvement Program”,

Paper Presented at 1993 Rapid Transit Conference, American Public Transit Association, 

33 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, DC, June 1993. 

Meadow, Linda, “Los Angeles Metro Blue Line Light Rail Safety Issues”, Transportation Research 

Record 1433, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp.

123-133.

Meadow, Linda and James Curry, “New Technologies for Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing 

Safety”, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit, Volume 2. 

Baltimore, Maryland, November, 1995.

Meadow, Linda and James Curry, “Light Rail Transit Safety Issues”, Compendium of Technical 

Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 47th District 6 Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon,

July 1994.

Mitretek Systems, Automated Enforcement of Traffic Signals; A Literature Review, Prepared For

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Contract Number DTFH61-

00-C-00001, Washington, DC, August 13, 2001.

Mohamedshah, Y. M., L. W. Chen, and F. M. Council, Association of Selected Intersection 

Factors with Red Light Running Crashes, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC, May 2000, pp. 1–21.

National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, http://www.stopredlightrunning.com.

“Officials Nationwide Give a Green Light to Automated Traffic Enforcement,” Status Report, 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Vol. 35, No. 3, March 2000.

O’Laughlin, John, “ITS Technology and Law Enforcement”, ITS Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 2.

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Washington, DC, Summer 1997, pp. 51-55.

PB Farradyne, Photo Enforcement System Review, Prepared for the City of San Diego Police

Department, January, 2002, http://www.sandiego.gov/police.

Passetti, K. A., and T. H. Hicks, Use of Automated Enforcement for Red Light Violations,

Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, pp. 1–60.

Photocop Home Page. Photocop, Cedar Park, Texas. http://www.photocop.com. 

Polk, A., “Electronic Enforcement of Traffic Laws: The Devil is in the Details,” ITS Quarterly, 

Summer 1998, pp. 12–27.

Redelmeier, D. “Traffic-Law Enforcement and Risk of Death from Motor-Vehicle Crashes: CaseCrossover Study”, The Lancet, Vol. 361, June 28, 2003, pp. 2177-2182.

Red Light Cameras Q&A: General, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia, 

http://www.hwysafety.org/qanda/qarlc.htm.

Red Light Literature, Photocop, Cedar Park, Texas. http://www.photocop.com/red-light.htm. 

Accessed August 4, 1999.

 Operational Guidelines 34 
 

Retting, R. A., and A. F. Williams, “Characteristics of Red Light Violators: Results of a Field 

Investigation,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 9–15.

Retting, R. A., A. F. Williams, C. M. Farmer, and A. F. Feldman, “Evaluation of Red Light Camera 

Enforcement in Fairfax, Virginia,” ITE Journal, October 1998, pp. 30–34.

Retting, R. A., A. F. Williams, C. M. Farmer, A. F. Feldman, Evaluation of Red Light Camera 

Enforcement in Oxnard, California, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia, 

March 1998, pp. 2–12. 

Retting, R. A., and A. F. Williams, “Public Opinion Regarding Red Light Cameras and the 

Perceived Risk of Being Ticketed,” In Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting 

(Preprint CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, 

DC, January 2000, pp. 1–5.

Retting, R. A., A. F. Williams, and M. A. Greene, “Red Light Running and Sensible 

Countermeasures: Summary of Research Findings,” Transportation Research Record, No. 

1640, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 23-26.

Retting, R.A., Robert G. Ulmer and Allan F. Williams, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Red 

Light Running Crashes in the United States,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 31, No. 6, 

1999, pp. 687-694.

Retting R.A., and S. Ferguson, “Effects of Red Light Cameras On Violations and Crashes: A 

Review of the International Literature,” Traffic Injury Prevention, 2003, pp. 17-23.

Ruby, D and A. Hobeika, Assessment of Red Light Running Cameras in Fairfax County, 

Virginia, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University, Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC, January 2003.

SafeLight First-Year Report. City of Charlotte, North Carolina, 1997.

Sisiopiku, V. Assessment of Red Light Running Camera Enforcement Technologies, Department 

of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, Presented at 81st Annual 

Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 2002.

Smith, D. M., J. McFadden, and K. A. Passetti, “Review of Automated Enforcement of Red Light 

Running Technology and Programs,” In Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting 

(Preprint CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, 

DC, January 2000, pp. 1–20.

State of North Carolina, http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/transportation/special+programs

/state+legislation.asp.

State of Maryland, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/srlr/pdf/Leg_Maryland.pdf

Stop Red Light Running Program, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stoprlr/index.htm, Accessed October 

18, 1999.

35 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

 

Stop Red Light Running Literature, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stoprlr/camr/camrtech.htm. Accessed 

November 1999.

Supriyasilp, T, D. Turner, J. Lindly, E. Mansfield, and J. Howell, Speed Sensitivity of a Red 

Light Camera Enforcement System, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The 

University of Alabama, Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC, January 2004. 

Swali, L. N., and P. L. Belcher, “The Use of Cameras to Reduce Casualties in London,” In 

International Conference on Road Traffic Monitoring and Control, Institution of Electrical 

Engineers, London, England, 1992, pp. 28–31. 

Turner, S. and A. E. Polk. “Overview of Automated Enforcement in Transportation,” ITE Journal, 

June 1998, pp. 20–28. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Accidents That Shouldn’t Happen, A Report of the Grade

Crossing Safety Task Force to Secretary Federico Pena, March 1, 1996, pp. 4.

Wissinger, L. M., J. E. Hummer, and J. S. Milazzo II, “Using Focus Groups to Investigate the 

Issues Surrounding Red Light Running,” Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting 

(Preprint CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, 

DC, January 2000, pp. 1–28.

World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, World Health Organization/The World Bank, 

Washington, DC, April 2004, pp. 132-133.

Vinzant, J. C., and B. J. Tatro, Evaluation of the Effects of Photo Radar Speed and Red Light 

Camera Technologies on Motor Vehicle Crash Rates, Department of Police, City of Mesa, 

Arizona, March 1, 1999, pp. 2–7.

Yamada, A., and P. Salzberg, A Review of Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems: A Report to 

Washington State Legislature, Washington Traffic Safety Commission, December 1999.

Yee, B. M., “San Francisco’s Red Light Camera Enforcement Program,” In Compendium 

of Technical Papers: The 67th ITE Annual Meeting. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

Washington, DC, 1997.

Zador, P., H. Stien, S. Shapiro, and P. Tarnoff,” Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic 

Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections,” ITE Journal, November 1985, pp. 36-39.

 Operational Guidelines 36 
 

APPENDIX A. PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

NOTICE 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) has 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 factdependent and/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.

37 Red Light Camera Systems 
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 page 51 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

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, motorists 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 Fourth Amendment

• Photographing a motorist is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment

• Pre-charging delay (delay between the violation’s occurrence and receipt of notice) 

– Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

 Operational Guidelines 38 
 

• 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 

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 

A reviews current relevant case law examples and in doing so illuminates the types of issues 

that have been raised.

39 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

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 Sixth 

Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and the Fourteenth 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 Fifth and Fourteenth 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). 

(continued next page) 

 Operational Guidelines 40 
 

 

 

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 “homerule” 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” when it authorized a government agency to “operate an automated enforcement 

system.” Thus, the program violated the statute. (continued next page) 

41 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

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” by 30.” 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 non-liability, 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 Lockeed’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.” (continued next page) 

Operational Guidelines 42 
 

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 substantial 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.”

43 Red Light Camera Systems 
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 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. 

 Operational Guidelines 44 
 

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. 

45 Red Light Camera Systems 
 

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.

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.

 Operational Guidelines 46 
 

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 chainof-custody 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 . . . .”

47 Red Light Camera Systems 
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.

 Operational Guidelines 48 
 

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 Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches 

and seizures, the Sixth Amendment’s right to present 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).

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

L. REV., 1879 (2002).

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

(2002).

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

and Motor Vehicles: Stop Photographic Enforcement of Red Lights, 30 MCGEORGE L. 

REV., 833 (1999).

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

L.J., 1209 (1998).

 Operational Guidelines 50 
 

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). 

51 Red Light Camera Systems 
 Operational Guidelines 52

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



Publication No. FHWA-SA-05-002

Revised June 2020