NATIONAL SURVEY OF SPEEDING
AND OTHER UNSAFE DRIVING ACTIONS

VOLUME III: Countermeasures

CHAPTER III.
ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT DEVICES

PHOTO ENFORCEMENT DEVICES

Nearly two-thirds (65%) of drivers said they had heard of automated photo enforcement devices which photograph and record information about traffic violators. Males (74%) were more likely than females (57%) to have heard about these devices.

Respondents were asked what effect, if any, photo enforcement devices would have on specific traffic outcomes. Four out of five (80%) believed the devices would have at least some effect on reducing the number of stop signs and red lights that drivers run. Three-fourths (76%) of drivers also thought the devices would have at least some effect on reducing speeding. Two drivers in three believed the devices would have some effect on reducing crashes (65%), and three drivers in five felt it would have at least some effect in getting dangerous drivers off the road (60%).

FIGURE 3-2 Qx: If photo enforcement of driving was introduced in your community, how much effect do you think it would have on [READ ITEM] --- a lot, some, only a little, or none at all. Base: Total driving population Unweighted N=3,044

Nearly eight in 10 (79%) thought using a photo enforcement system on drivers who run red lights would be a good idea. Only slightly fewer (74%) thought using the system against those who don't stop at stop signs would be a good idea. Seventy-one percent thought it would be a good idea to use a photo enforcement system against speeders.

FIGURE 3-3 Qx: Do you think that it would be a good idea or a bad idea to use a photo enforcement system like this to identify vehicles which were ... running red lights, speeding, not stopping at stop signs? Base: National population of drivers Unweighted N=3,044 Note: Remainder = "Don't Know"

Females were somewhat more likely than males to endorse the use of photo enforcement devices for the three specific situations mentioned. More females than males thought it would be a good idea to use photo enforcement for: running red lights (84% versus 74%); not stopping at stop signs (80% versus 69%); and for speeding (78% versus 63%).

FIGURE 3-4 Qx: Do you think that it would be a good idea or a bad idea to use a photo enforcement system like this to identify vehicles which were ... running red lights, speeding, not stopping at stop signs? Base: National population of drivers Unweighted N=3,044

Using the responses to the previous questions, drivers were classified as thinking photo enforcement was a good idea (69% of drivers) if they felt photo enforcement was a good idea to identify vehicles which were running red lights, speeding and not stopping at stop signs. Similarly, drivers were classified as thinking photo enforcement was a bad idea (15% of drivers) if they felt photo enforcement was a bad idea in all three cases. Drivers were classified as both a good and bad idea (16% of drivers) if their responses were mixed, that is, they felt the use of photo enforcement was a good idea in at least one instance but was a bad idea in at least one other instance. They were then asked why they thought it was a good, bad, or both a good and bad idea (see Tables 3-1 thru 3-3).

One in three (34%) mentioned traffic laws. Specifically, they said there would be fewer traffic violations since drivers would obey traffic laws if the thought they were being watched (18%) and that it was an additional tool for enforcement (12%). About one in four (27%) mentioned something to do with law enforcement, specifically that fewer police would be needed for traffic enforcement (19%). An almost similar number (25%) mentioned driver related reasons, primarily that photo enforcement would increase driver awareness (19%). In addition, one in five (20%) felt that photo enforcement was a good idea because the picture would prove that the violation had taken place.

TABLE 3-1

Reasons why photo enforcement is a bad idea are equally diverse (see Table 3-2). Three in ten (29%) mentioned a reason related to law enforcement primarily dealing with a preference for in-person contact and that a machine could not make an assessment of the circumstances (18%) and, to a lesser extent, a feeling that machines should not do the work of a human (12%). About one in eight (13%) were concerned about camera failure and an equal number (12%) gave a driver related reason. In addition, one in four (26%) felt photo enforcement was an invasion of privacy. Only a very small number (2%) of these drivers gave a reason in favor of photo enforcement.

TABLE 3-2

Drivers who had mixed feelings about photo enforcement gave an equal number (69%) of good or bad reasons (see Table 3-3). On the favorable side, two in five (40%) gave a reason related to traffic laws, with 28% mentioning that there would be fewer traffic violations. An additional 12% gave driver-related reasons. On the unfavorable side 12%

TABLE 3-3

mentioned driver-related issues -- mostly that the driver has no one to explain the situation to; 11% mentioned camera failure; 11% mentioned law enforcement reasons, mostly a preference for in-person contact; and one in six (17%) suggested photo enforcement could be ineffective or unenforceable.

About two-thirds of the public finds it at least somewhat acceptable to employ photo enforcement devices at locations where, if stopped, would either cause traffic congestion (68%) or would be hazardous to either the driver or the police officer (70%). The acceptability of photo enforcement increases substantially for locations where crashes have occurred (77%) and in school zones (89%).

FIGURE 3-5 Qx: Thinking about locations where photo enforcement might be used, would you find it very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, or not at all acceptable to use it . . . where it could be hazardous to the driver or officer to stop; where stopping a vehicle could cause traffic congestion; where an accident has occurred; in school zones. Base: National driving population Unweighted N=3,044

When asked, about one in seven drivers (14%) mentioned other situations where photo enforcement might be used. Most (6%) mentioned high population areas such as schools, playgrounds, hospitals, and residential areas. About the same percentage mentioned high traffic areas such as intersections, on-off ramps, and areas that experience a large number of complaints or crashes. One percent said there should be no uses other than those previously mentioned.

TABLE 3-4

SUMMARY

Over two-thirds of all drivers felt it was a good idea to use photo enforcement devices to reduce speeding, not obeying stop signs and running red lights. Those who thought photo enforcement was a good idea said it would decrease the occurrence of these unsafe actions and that it would provide solid proof of the violation. Conversely, those who thought it was a bad idea in these three situations, cited privacy concerns and a preference for personal interaction. When asked about using photo enforcement in specific locations, over two-thirds felt the devices would curtail added congestion from the "pullover" scene, particularly in places where it is hazardous to stop. An even higher number of drivers supported the implementation of the photo enforcement devices in locations where crashes frequently occurred (four in five) and in school zones (nine in ten).