Automated Enforcement Devices

Automated enforcement devices have the potential to reduce the level of traffic policing resources required whilst providing an efficient and effective means of detecting and deterring traffic offenders. The use of automated enforcement devices is becoming increasingly popular, in many countries, as an alternative to traditional based enforcement methods. Areas where the use of automated traffic enforcement devices have been used include:

• speed limit enforcement;

• red light traffic signal enforcement;

• high occupancy vehicle lane enforcement; and • heavy vehicle enforcement.

Automated enforcement devices typically consist of detection equipment, a processing unit and a camera and a video or digital image recording device. When a vehicle is detected the processing unit determines whether or not an offence is being committed and if so an image is recorded. The image typically records information about the vehicle, driver and the time and date of the offence. The information is then used to identify the owner and, if required, the driver of the vehicle. A traffic offence notification or warning letter is then mailed to the owner of the vehicle.

Rothengatter (1990) has described several ways in which automated enforcement devices can contribute to the effectiveness of the efforts of police traffic enforcement. Firstly, such devices can increase the probability of detection of traffic violations (in theory the detection probability can be equal to one) without requiring substantial increases in police resources. Secondly, such devices can increase the amount and relevance of information or feedback provided to the road user, and thus, can result in a decrease in the likelihood of an offence being committed. Finally, these devices produce definite evidence that an offence has been committed which can increase the 'fairness' and objectivity of enforcement because it is not necessary to rely on the subjective judgement of the police officer as to whether or not an offence has been committed.

The use of automated enforcement devices has a range of other benefits relating to the simplification of prosecution and notification procedures. The diminished requirement to write out individual traffic infringement notices can improve the efficiency of policing operations and result in a significant increase in detection and prosecution rates (Axup, 1990). Fitzpatrick (1991) stated that the existence of definite evidence that an offence has been committed can also result in efficiency gains because offending road users are more likely to agree with the nominated penalty rather than to try to dispute it. Rothengatter (1990) further indicated that the reluctance of drivers to dispute offences could lead to the simplification of court procedures or even make them superfluous.

The use and effectiveness of automated enforcement detection devices are discussed in greater detail in later chapters of this review. However, it is important to note that the majority of the research literature examined supports the conclusion that automated enforcement devices, with their numerous deployment options, demonstrated productivity, impact on driver behaviour and potential to reduce accidents can be a highly cost effective means of traffic law enforcement even when taking into account resource requirements and relatively high initial deployment costs.

Legal issues associated with automated enforcement devices

The use of automated camera detection devices has raised a number of legal issues regarding the use of photographic evidence as a means of convicting traffic offenders. The main issues, as stated by Fitzpatrick (1991) are the legality of photographic evidence as a means of convicting traffic offenders, the possible violation of the right of privacy of the

individual and the liability for an offence committed by a driver who was not the registered owner of the vehicle.

These issues, although not directly related to actual traffic policing, can nevertheless have a significant impact upon the effectiveness of automated enforcement as a means of deterring traffic offenders. South et al, (1989) highlighted this problem and concluded that the full potential of automated enforcement devices is never fully realised in many countries due to the legal requirements governing their use. Southgate & Mirrlees-Black, (1991) further stated that once legislation has been passed which allows the use of these devices as a means of prosecuting traffic offenders, legislative issues relating to driver and vehicle identification can still have a significant impact upon their effectiveness as enforcement devices.

Fitzpatrick, (1991) provided details relating to the situation in several areas within the United States of America where there is still a requirement, when using automated detection devices, to identify not only the vehicle but also the driver. Blackburn and Glauz (1984) indicated that this legal requirement necessitates the taking of a frontal photograph which can decrease the detection and apprehension probability due to other vehicles being positioned in front of the offending vehicle and the reflective properties of angled front windscreens.

When automated detection devices were first introduced in Australia it quickly became evident that the full potential and utilisation of these devices was not being realised due to ineffective practices, resulting from road traffic regulations that required police to identify the driver of the offending vehicle (South et al, 1989). This often involved considerable labour resources and resulted in low prosecution rates which, in turn, reduced the deterrent effect of the automated devices.

In order to resolve this situation and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of police automated detection operations it was necessary to introduce new legislation. This legislation termed the 'owner-onus legislation', placed the responsibility for camera detected offences on to the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver. The result of the new legislation was a significant decrease in offence processing time and an increase in the number of offenders prosecuted. This, in turn, resulted in an increase in the probability of detection and a reduction in the number of violations. In New South Wales, Australia, the best available estimates of the effect of the owner-onus legislation on police efficiency is that the legislation reduced the costs of processing each offence by approximately 50 per cent (South et al, 1989).

Problems associated with automated enforcement

Due to the high detection and prosecution rates resulting from the use of automated enforcement devices some critics have argued (O'Neill, 1993) about the fairness and morality of such devices and their use as a means of raising revenue. Southgate & Mirrlees-Black (1991) have indicated that the perceived fairness of enforcement is an important variable in police community relations and can have a significant impact upon policing efforts to educate drivers and promote appropriate road user behaviour.

Southgate & Mirrlees-Black (1991) have stated that the use of automated enforcement has a significant deterrent effect due to the increase in detection and prosecution rates but argue that if automated enforcement is to bring about a change in societal attitudes towards deviant road user behaviour then it is essential that public perceptions and acceptance

regarding the use of such devices are high. Experiences in Australia have shown that positive community attitudes towards the use of automated detection devices can be generated by:

• publicity programs which highlight the need to use automated enforcement devices to target specific road safety problems;

• strategic deployment of such devices at locations with a previously documented accident history; and

• community consultation regarding site selection for the deployment of such devices.

Freedman et al (1990), in a survey of public opinions regarding the use of automated enforcement devices, reported considerable support for this form of enforcement. The highest level of support was found in those communities where such enforcement was already in use, indicating that preconceived notions about the use of such devices is an important factor in public acceptance. Another significant survey finding was that only a minority of road users disapproved of the use of automated enforcement devices with the two most reported reasons being the possibility of the wrong person receiving the fine and the 'sneakiness' of the enforcement activities.

In the country where the survey was conducted, wrongful prosecution was extremely rare due to legislation which placed the onus on the owner of the vehicle to identify the driver, and detection procedures which required identified number plates to be cross checked with vehicle registration details such as colour and make. Comments regarding the 'sneakiness' of the program also appear to have been unfounded due to the careful selection of the sites to be enforced, extensive community consultation, the use of clearly marked warning signs, and the highly visible police presence at the enforcement sites. It therefore seems that disapproval of automated enforcement was based on misinformation and general resentment of being policed (Fildes & Lee, 1993).

Immediacy of punishment has also been identified as a potential problem associated with the use of automated enforcement devices. Rothengatter (1990) indicated that existing automated enforcement systems do not provide adequate feedback to the driver that an offence has been committed. The problem arises due to the delay (caused by the time intensive tasks associated with the processing of automatically detected traffic offences) between the detection of an offence and the receipt of offence notification by the offending road user. Rothengatter (1990) has suggested that this time delay and the lack of on-site recognition of an offence can result in a reduction in the potential deterrence effect and does little to reinforce appropriate road user behaviour.

However, the experience with automated enforcement devices in Melbourne, Australia, has shown (Rogerson et al., 1993) that the intensive use of these devices can result in considerable reductions in deviant road user behaviour. Bodinnar (1993) indicated that such behaviour modification may be due to the high level of general deterrence associated with the intensive use of automated enforcement devices. Portans (1988) further suggested that road users modify their behaviour as a result of an increased awareness of how such devices work. This includes the knowledge that the probability of detection and subsequent punitive measures is high and can result without the driver being aware that an offence had been detected.

Another possible means of reducing the problem of delays in notification of an offence is through the use of new automated enforcement technology. Locke, (1993) indicated that new enforcement systems already exist which can lead to a significant reduction in offence notification times. These new systems can theoretically allow the offending motorist to receive notification 'within hours (allowing for processing and verification time) after they have committed the offence (Lock, 1993).

The use of electronic offence notification displays is one further means of solving the problem of insufficient road user feedback. These display boards, situated several hundred meters after the enforcement site can be used in conjunction with automated detection devices to provide traffic law violators with a message indicating that an offence has been detected.

These information displays have a dual benefit in that they not only provide road users with offence notification information but they also serve as a strong visual reminder that enforcement operations are active.

Rothengatter (1990) provided the conceptual framework for an optimal automated enforcement system that combines the use of electronically coded licence plate identification and on-site registration systems as well as providing in-car information to drivers who have committed an offence. Although no such automated enforcement systems are presently in operation the technology is currently available to develop and implement such a system.