Traffic Cameras

Public Policy Position Adopted December 2025

WHEREAS lower urban traffic speeds and observance of traffic signals are associated with decreased crash-related injuries and fatalities and

WHEREAS a high percentage of vehicular crashes occur at intersections and

WHEREAS known presence of traffic cameras has been shown to encourage speed moderation and improved driver behavior and

WHEREAS traffic cameras allow diversion of police to other activities and

WHEREAS newer technology camera systems can provide real-time data in crash situations and

WHEREAS traffic cameras at intersections and roadways allow analysis of traffic flow and road needs:

BE IT RESOLVED that the utilization of this technology be promoted globally, including moderate-income nations, and legislation to permit enforcement based on these be promoted.

Rationale

The application of technology to crash and injury prevention has been available since the 1980s. In recent years, advances in intelligent systems have improved enforcement as well as emergency responses to crashes worldwide. Contemporary services can identify dangerous behavior and, perhaps more importantly, crashes associated with injury more rapidly than emergency personnel. Traffic cameras also allow the collection of data-driven information on traffic flow and road needs (Hooke).

Choi at the Traffic Safety Administration identified in 2010 that 8% of fatal crashes occur at intersections (and 40% of crashes in total), where traffic cameras are most likely to be installed. Hernandez showed that the presence of traffic cameras at intersections reduced broadside impacts by 25%, although minor rear-end collisions increased, presumably to avoid camera capture.

Several international and domestic studies have validated the use of traffic cameras for the enforcement of traffic laws and lowering crash incidence. In Barcelona, Perez et al. assessed the effectiveness of traffic cameras on beltways in the city. They estimated a decrease of 27% in the number of injuries, similar for both daytime (including rush hour) and weekend driving times.

Hess analyzed injuries in Cambridge, UK, between 1990 and 2002, from 49 cameras. Crashes decreased more than 45% in the vicinity of camera sites. The largest reduction in crashes was seen on roads where illegal speeds were common.

Mendevil et al. explored the cost-effectiveness of traffic cameras in Spain. Cost savings were based on the cost to property and persons of crashes versus the costs of extant technology. It did not appear to include fines or savings related to the redeployment of enforcement personnel. Even with these limitations, traffic cameras were associated with significant cost savings.

References

Choi, E. H. (2010). Crash factors in intersection-related crashes: An on-scene perspective (No. HS-811 366).

Katherine Pérez, Marc Marí-Dell’Olmo, Aurelio Tobias, and Carme Borrell: Reducing Road Traffic Injuries: Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting American Journal of Public Health 97, 1632_1637

Hernandez, R. (2010). Traffic-camera debate heats up campaign trails. New York Times August 7th.

Hess, S. (2004). Analysis of the Effects of Speed Limit Enforcement Cameras: Differentiation by Road Type and Catchment Area. Transportation Research Record, 1865(1), 28-34

Hooke, A., Knox, J., & Portas, D. (1996). Cost benefit analysis of traffic light & speed cameras. London, UK: Home Office, Police Research Group.

Mendivil J, García-Altés A, Pérez K, et al.
Speed cameras in an urban setting: a cost–benefit analysis
Injury Prevention 2012; 18:75-80

Lindsey M. Higgins, W. Douglass Shaw, Aklesso Egbendewe-Mondzozo,
Attributes affecting preferences for traffic safety camera programs,
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 43, Issue 3,2011, 1042-1048