Editing Traffic enforcement camera (section)

==Controversy==
{{More citations needed section|date=May 2010}}

===Legal issues===
Various legal issues arise from such cameras and the laws involved in how cameras can be placed and what evidence is necessary to prosecute a driver varies considerably in different legal systems.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/rlc_guide/rlc_bib.htm#Toc93387608 |title=Stopping Red Light Running - FHWA Safety |access-date=February 6, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090509134710/http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/rlc_guide/rlc_bib.htm |archive-date=May 9, 2009 }}</ref>

One issue is the potential [[conflict of interest]] when private contractors are paid a [[commission (remuneration)|commission]] based on the number of tickets they are able to issue. Pictures from the [[San Diego]] red light camera systems were ruled inadmissible as [[court]] [[evidence (law)|evidence]] in September 2001. The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made evidence from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted".<ref>{{cite court|url=http://www.alexandrialawlibrary.com/red57927.dismiss-ord-080901.htm|litigants=[[Government of California|State of California]] vs John Allen, et al.|court=[[Superior Courts of California|Superior Court of the State of California]], [[San Diego County, California|County of San Diego]]|quote=The statute contemplated that it would be a governmental agency that operated the system, not private enterprise. The potential conflict created by a contingent method of compensation further undermines the trustworthiness of the evidence that is used to prosecute red light violations. The evidence obtained from the red light camera system as presently operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted}}</ref>

Some US states and [[provinces of Canada]], such as [[Alberta]], operate "owner liability", where it is the registered owner of the vehicle who is legally responsible for paying all such fines, regardless who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense, although they do release the owner from liability by identifying the actual driver and that person pays the fine,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_01#section83.1|title=Liability of owner for speeding and traffic light violations|quote=The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the contravention of section 140, 146 (1), (3), (5) or (7), 147 or 148 (1) if evidence of the contravention was gathered through the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device... prescribed traffic light safety device... An owner is not liable under subsection (2) or (2.1) if the owner establishes that (a) the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle was not entrusted by the owner with possession, or (b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence in entrusting the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101218070427/http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_01#section83.1|archive-date=2010-12-18}}</ref> and in most such jurisdictions, convictions for such traffic offenses do not result in additional consequences for either drivers or owners (such as [[demerit points]]) besides the immediate financial consideration of the fine. In such jurisdictions, corporations that own vehicles (such as [[rental car]] companies) almost invariably require authorized drivers to agree in writing to assume financial responsibly for all such tickets.

In a few US states (including California), the cameras are set up to get a "face photo" of the driver.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/40459.html |title=City of Santa Maria, California, Red Light Camera Enforcement, Police Services |access-date=May 18, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110506014228/http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/40459.html |archive-date=May 6, 2011 }}</ref> This has been done because in those states red light camera tickets are criminal violations, and criminal charges must always name the actual violator. In California, that need to identify the actual violator has led to the creation of a unique investigatory tool, the fake "ticket".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes |title=(Fighting) Your Ticket - Red Light Cameras in California |website=Highwayrobbery.net |access-date=2016-06-30 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160708062307/http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes |archive-date=2016-07-08 }}</ref><ref>David Goldstein, CBS Television, Los Angeles [http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/13/goldstein-investigation-are-police-tricking-people-into-paying-snitch-tickets/ "Are police tricking people into paying Snitch Tickets?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110423041023/http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/13/goldstein-investigation-are-police-tricking-people-into-paying-snitch-tickets/ |date=2011-04-23 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=10022 |title=The Right To Remain Silent |work=www.almanacnews.com |access-date=November 18, 2011 |date=8 November 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111113052247/http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=10022 |archive-date=13 November 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://handelonthelaw.com/home/article_details.aspx?Article=78 |title=Something Every Consumer Should Know |work=www.HandelontheLaw.com |access-date=November 18, 2011 |date=March 27, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111024211647/http://handelonthelaw.com/home/article_details.aspx?Article=78 |archive-date=October 24, 2011 }}</ref> In Arizona and Virginia, tickets issued by cameras are unenforceable due to there being no penalty for ignoring them. However, acknowledging receipt of such ticket makes it valid and thus enforceable.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.schillingshow.com/2010/11/15/ignoring-is-bliss-why-virginians-can-safely-discard-red-light-camera-tickets/|title=Ignoring is bliss: Why Virginians can safely discard red-light camera tickets|date=November 15, 2010|website=The Schilling Show Blog|access-date=December 22, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223063310/http://www.schillingshow.com/2010/11/15/ignoring-is-bliss-why-virginians-can-safely-discard-red-light-camera-tickets/|archive-date=December 23, 2016}}</ref> Many states have outlawed the use of traffic enforcement cameras.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/automated_enforcement/enforcementtable?topicName=Red%20light%20running#tableData|title=States using red light and speed cameras|website=www.iihs.org|access-date=December 22, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223131729/http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/automated_enforcement/enforcementtable?topicName=Red%20light%20running#tableData|archive-date=December 23, 2016}}</ref>

In April 2000, two motorists who were caught speeding in the United Kingdom challenged the ''Road Traffic Act 1988'', which required the keeper of a car to identify the driver at a particular time<ref name=HumanRights/> as being in contradiction to the [[Human Rights Act 1998]] on the grounds that it amounted to a 'compulsory confession', also that since the camera partnerships included the police, local authorities, Magistrates Courts Service (MCS) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which had a financial interest in the fine revenue that they would not get a fair trial. Their plea was initially granted by a judge then overturned but was then heard by the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECtHR), and the [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ). In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights found there was no breach of article 6 in requiring the keepers of cars caught speeding on camera to provide the name of the driver.<ref name=HumanRights>{{cite web|url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=819526&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649|title=O'Halloran and Francis v. The United Kingdom|website=Cmiskp.echr.coe.int|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120524084421/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=819526&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649|archive-date=2012-05-24}}</ref>

===Accuracy===
In December 2012, Speed Camera Contractor Xerox Corporation admitted that cameras they had deployed in Baltimore city were producing erroneous speed readings and that 1 out of every 20 citations issued at some locations were due to errors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-14/news/bs-md-speed-camera-error-rate-20121214_1_camera-tickets-camera-contractor-xerox-state|title=Some Baltimore speed cameras have 5% error rate, Xerox says|website=Tribunedigital-baltimoresun|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20160701020450/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-14/news/bs-md-speed-camera-error-rate-20121214_1_camera-tickets-camera-contractor-xerox-state|archive-date=2016-07-01}}</ref> The erroneous citations included at least one issued to a completely stationary car, a fact revealed by a recorded video of the alleged violation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-12/news/bs-md-speed-camera-stopped-car-20121212_1_potential-citation-xerox-state-camera-ticket|title=Baltimore issued speed camera ticket to car stopped at red light|website=Tribunedigital-baltimoresun|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130127174722/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-12/news/bs-md-speed-camera-stopped-car-20121212_1_potential-citation-xerox-state-camera-ticket|archive-date=2013-01-27}}</ref>

In the city of [[Fort Dodge, Iowa]], speed camera contractor Redspeed discovered a location where drivers of school buses, big panel trucks, and similar vehicles have been clocked speeding by the city's mobile speed camera and radar unit even though they were obeying the 25&nbsp;mph speed limit. The errors were due to what was described as an "electromagnetic anomaly".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/545083/|title=Chief cites 'Bermuda Triangle'|website=Messengernews.net|access-date=2016-06-30}}</ref>

Where verification photos are recorded on a time sequence, allowing the calculation of actual speed, these have been used to challenge the accuracy of speed cameras in court. Motorists in [[Prince George's County]], Maryland, have successfully challenged tickets from Optotraffic speed cameras where they were incorrectly ticketed at over 15&nbsp;mph over the limit.<ref name="opto">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/20/business-owner-casts-reasonable-doubt-on-accuracy-/?page=all#pagebreak|title=Business owner casts reasonable doubt on accuracy of speed cameras|author=David Hill|newspaper=The Washington Times|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425034639/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/20/business-owner-casts-reasonable-doubt-on-accuracy-/?page=all#pagebreak|archive-date=2011-04-25}}</ref> However, Prince George County no longer allows time-distance calculations as a defense in cases where "the equipment was calibrated and validated, or is self calibrating".<ref>{{cite web|title=Maryland: Innocence Not a Defense to Speed Camera Citations|url=http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3645.asp|publisher=the newspaper.com|access-date=19 January 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202113804/http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3645.asp|archive-date=2 February 2014}}</ref> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards for "across the road radar" state that "If the ATR device is to be considered for unattended operation, the manufacturer shall provide a secondary method for verifying that the evidential recorded image properly identifies the target vehicle and reflects this vehicle's true speed, as described in §5.18.2. This may be accomplished by means of a second, appropriately delayed image showing the target vehicle crossing a specified reference line."<ref name="NHTSA">{{cite web|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/810845.pdf|title=Speed-Measuring Device Performance Specifications:Across-the-Road Radar Module|website=NHTSA.gov|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160319042701/http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/810845.pdf|archive-date=2016-03-19}}</ref>

In January 2011 Edmonton, Alberta cancelled all 100,000 "Speed On Green" tickets issued in the previous 14 months due to concerns about camera reliability.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/intersection-safety-camera-spe.aspx |title=Intersection Safety Camera Speeding Tickets Cancelled :: City of Edmonton |access-date=February 8, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130926170200/http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/intersection-safety-camera-spe.aspx |archive-date=September 26, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/TrafficVehicles/IntersectionSafetyCameras/ISCCancellations.aspx |title=Intersection Safety Camera Ticket Cancellations |access-date=February 8, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111105094905/http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/TrafficVehicles/IntersectionSafetyCameras/ISCCancellations.aspx |archive-date=November 5, 2011 }}</ref>

===Surveillance===
{{Main|Automatic number-plate recognition}}
[[Police]] and [[government]]s have been accused of "[[Surveillance state|Big Brother]] tactics" in over-monitoring of public roads, and of "[[revenue]] raising" in applying cameras in deceptive ways to increase government revenue rather than improve road safety.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/even-the-safest-driver-is-being-set-up-to-fail/2008/03/22/1205602736174.html|title=Even the Safest Driver is Being Set Up to Fail|author=Miranda Devine|date=2008-03-23|newspaper=Sydney Morning Herald|access-date=2010-05-05|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080430092218/http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/even-the-safest-driver-is-being-set-up-to-fail/2008/03/22/1205602736174.html|archive-date=2008-04-30}}</ref>

Online websites, like Photo Radar Scam and BantheCams.org, have been created in reaction to the rising use of [[traffic cameras]]. Their primary goal, as stated by BantheCams.org, is to "educate and equip local citizens with a way to combat the abuse of power now being exercised by local and state governments with the regards to the use of electronic [[surveillance]] devices."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.banthecams.org/about-banthecamsorg.html|title=About BantheCams.org|publisher=BantheCams.org|quote=BanTheCams.org was created to organize, educate and equip local citizens with a way to combat the abuse of power now being exercised by local and state governments with the regards to the use of electronic surveillance devices.|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016193518/http://www.banthecams.org/about-banthecamsorg.html|archive-date=2015-10-16}}</ref>

Groups like NHTSA ([[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]]) have encouraged the usage of automated [[speed]] enforcement to help improve general road safety and to decrease crash rates.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/HS810764.pdf|title=Demonstration of Automated Speed Enforcement in School Zones in Portland, Oregon|publisher=Westat, Inc.|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160318211233/http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/HS810764.pdf|archive-date=2016-03-18}}</ref>

* A concern with replacing in-person traffic stops with automated enforcement, where drivers receive tickets by mail, is the lack of officer interaction during these incidents. When an officer pulls someone over to conduct a traffic stop they are able to look at the driver and for instance see if the driver may be impaired as well as looking at the car itself to see if a plain view search could be conducted. When this is taken away by a ticket through the mail someone committing a crime would not be caught in this incident as they would if they had gotten pulled over in person.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cooper |first=Simon |date=October 2010 |title=Mechanical Law Enforcement: Speeding and Camera Technology |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1350/jcla.2010.74.5.656 |journal=The Journal of Criminal Law |language=en |volume=74 |issue=5 |pages=409–414 |doi=10.1350/jcla.2010.74.5.656 |s2cid=144178573 |issn=0022-0183}}</ref>

===Revenue, not safety===
* In 2010, a campaign was set up against a speed camera on a [[dual carriageway]] in [[Poole, Dorset]] in a 30&nbsp;mph area in the [[United Kingdom]], which had generated £1.3m of fines every year since 1999. The initial [[Freedom of information]] request was refused and the information was only released after an appeal to the [[Information Commissioner's Office|Information Commissioner]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10555354|title=Group claims speed camera nets £1.3m a year in fines|work=[[BBC News]]|date=2010-07-08|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102234552/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10555354|archive-date=2016-01-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/anger+at+13mayear+speed+camera/3702842 |title=Anger at £1.3m-a-year speed camera - Channel 4 News |website=Channel4.com |access-date=2016-06-30 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100905131756/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/anger+at+13mayear+speed+camera/3702842 |archive-date=2010-09-05 }}</ref>
* In May 2010, the new Coalition government said that the 'Labour's 13-year war on the motorist is over' and that the new government 'pledged to scrap public funding for speed cameras'{{Citation needed|date=June 2020}} In July [[Mike Penning]], the Road safety minister reduced the Road Safety Grant for the current year to Local Authorities from £95 million to £57 million, saying that local authorities had relied too heavily on safety cameras for far too long and that he was pleased that some councils were now focusing on other road safety measures. It is estimated that as a result, the Treasury is now distributing £40 million less in Road Safety Grant than is raised from fines in the year.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7909246/Treasury-set-to-cash-in-on-speeding-fines.html|title=Treasury set to cash in on speeding fines|work=The Telegraph|quote=The decision to reduce the Road Safety Grant £95 million to £57 million this year means that the Government could raise as much as £40 million more from speeding fines than it hands back to local authorities to reduce death and injury on the country’s roads.|location=London|first=David|last=Millward|date=2010-07-26|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160810131733/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7909246/Treasury-set-to-cash-in-on-speeding-fines.html|archive-date=2016-08-10}}</ref> Dorset and Essex announced plans to review camera provision with a view to possibly ending the scheme in their counties,<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/> however Dorset strongly affirmed its support for the scheme, albeit reducing financial contributions in line with the reduction in government grant.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/index.php?option%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D362%26Itemid%3D84 |title=Dorset Safety Cameras by Dorset Safety Camera Partnership - Continuing Support for the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership 27th July 2010 |access-date=August 23, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313012717/http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=362&Itemid=84 |archive-date=March 13, 2012 }}</ref> Seven counties also announced plans to turn off some or all of their cameras,<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10733021|title=Lack of police funds could end South West speed cameras|publisher=BBC|date=2010-07-22|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131012022/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10733021|archive-date=2016-01-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/02/speed-camera-turn-off-starts-115875-22457737|title=Speed camera turn-off starts|website=Mirror.co.uk|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110917140757/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/02/speed-camera-turn-off-starts-115875-22457737/|archive-date=2011-09-17|date=August 2010}}</ref> amidst warnings from the country's most senior traffic policeman that this would result in an increase in deaths and injuries.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/09/speed-cameras-funding-road-safety|title=Cutting funding for speed cameras will cost lives, police warn|author=Adam Gabbatt|newspaper=Guardian|location=London|date=2010-08-09|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160927183006/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/09/speed-cameras-funding-road-safety|archive-date=2016-09-27}}</ref> Gloucestershire cancelled plans to update cameras and has reduced or cancelled maintenance contracts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Speed-cameras-stay-maintenance/article-2481320-detail/article.html|title=Speed cameras will stay in Gloucestershire - but no more maintenance|author=Freddie Whittaker|publisher=This Is Gloucestershire|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100806110145/http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Speed-cameras-stay-maintenance/article-2481320-detail/article.html|archive-date=2010-08-06}}</ref>
* In August 2010, the Oxfordshire, UK speed cameras were switched off because of lack of finance due to government funding policy changes. The cameras were switched back on in April 2011 after a new source of funding was found for them.<ref name=bbc_20110401>{{cite news |title=Oxfordshire's speed cameras to be switched back on |date=2011-04-01 |work=News Oxford |publisher=BBC |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-12928747 |access-date=2011-07-15 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110827091447/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-12928747 |archive-date=2011-08-27 }}</ref> Following rule changes on the threshold for offering "Speed Awareness Courses" as an alternative to a fine and licence points for drivers, and given that the compulsory fees charged for such courses go directly to the partnerships rather than directly to central government as is the case for fine revenues, the partnership will be able to fund its operations from course fees.<ref name=bbc_20110401/> Compared with the same period in the previous year with the cameras still switched on, the number of serious injuries that occurred during the same period with the cameras switched off was exactly the same{{snd}}at 13{{snd}}and the number of slight injuries was 15 more at 70, resulting from 62 crashes{{snd}}2 more than when the cameras were still operating.<ref name=bbc_20110401/> There were no fatalities during either period.<ref name=bbc_20110401/>

===Unpopularity===
Claims of popular support are disputed by elections in the US, where the camera companies often sue to keep it off the ballot, and camera enforcement often loses by a wide margin {{Citation needed|date=September 2024}}. Automated enforcement is opposed by some motorists and motoring organizations {{who|date=September 2024}} as strictly for revenue generating. They have also been rejected in some places by referendum. [[Opinion polling]] in [[New York City]],<ref>{{cite web | url=https://transalt.org/press-releases/new-poll-reveals-new-york-city-voters-support-automated-enforcement-to-make-streets-safer | title=New Poll Reveals New York City Voters Support Automated Enforcement to Make Streets Safer }}</ref> [[British Columbia]],<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/speed/poll-automated-speed-enforcement | title=POLL - Automated Speed Enforcement &#124; DriveSmartBC }}</ref> and [[Washington, DC]]<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/speeding-and-speed-management/countermeasures/enforcement/speed-safety-camera-enforcement | title=Speed Safety Camera Enforcement &#124; NHTSA }}</ref> have shown significant margins of approval for automatic speed enforcement. 

*The first speed camera systems in the US were in [[Friendswood, Texas]], in 1986 and [[La Marque, Texas]], in 1987.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=raZRAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA128|title=The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day|last=Hand|first=David J.|date=2014-02-11|publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux|isbn=9780374711399|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-09-17-ga-8493-story.html|title=Say 'Cheese,' Speeders: Pasadena to Test Photo Radar|last=DUNN|first=ASHLEY|date=1987-09-17|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2018-08-11|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035}}</ref> Neither program lasted more than a few months before public pressure forced them to be dropped.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2005/11/freeze-frame/|title=Freeze Frame - The Truth About Cars|date=2005-11-14|work=The Truth About Cars|access-date=2018-08-11|language=en-US}}</ref>
*In 1991, cameras were rejected in referendum in [[Peoria, Arizona]]; voters were the first to reject cameras by a 2–1 margin.<ref name=":1" />
*In 1992, cameras were rejected by voters in referendums in [[Batavia, Illinois]].<ref>'Photocop didn't play in Peoria', by Wayne Baker in The [[Chicago Tribune]], March 21, 1991</ref>
*[[Anchorage, Alaska]], rejected cameras in a 1997 referendum.<ref name=":1" />
*In 2002, the state of [[Hawaii]] experimented with speed limit enforcement vans but they were withdrawn months later due to public outcry.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1390665/Angry-drivers-force-Hawaii-to-drop-speed-cameras.html|newspaper=Daily Telegraph|date=2002-04-12|title=Angry drivers force Hawaii to drop speed cameras|access-date=2010-05-05|location=London|first=Oliver|last=Poole|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100607000024/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1390665/Angry-drivers-force-Hawaii-to-drop-speed-cameras.html|archive-date=2010-06-07}}</ref>
*A 2002 Australian survey found that "The community generally believes that enforcement intensities should either stay the same or increase", with 40% of those surveyed saying that they thought that the number of speed cameras on the road should be increased, 43% saying that they thought the number should stay the same, and 13% saying that they thought that the number should be decreased.<ref>{{cite web|last=Mitchell-Taverner, Zipparo and Goldsworthy|title=Survey on Speeding and Enforcement|url=http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2003/pdf/Speed_Risk_4.pdf|publisher=Australian Transport Safety Bureau|access-date=17 December 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320191631/https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2003/pdf/Speed_Risk_4.pdf|archive-date=20 March 2012}}</ref> 
*In 2005, the [[Virginia]] legislature declined to reauthorize its [[red light camera]] enforcement law after a study questioned their effectiveness,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/redlight79-15.pdf|title=Red-light Cameras in Texas: A Status Report|website=Hro.house.state.tx.us|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011130837/http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/redlight79-15.pdf|archive-date=2016-10-11}}</ref> only to reverse itself in 2007 and allow cameras to return to any city with a population greater than 10,000.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.localkicks.com/community/news/Red_Light_Cameras_Return_to_Alexandria|title=Red-Light Cameras Return to Alexandria - Alexandria Virginia News {{!}} LocalKicks|website=www.localkicks.com|access-date=2018-08-11}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Fairfax-Red-Light-Cameras-Making-a-Return-124654789.html|title=New Red-Light Cameras in Fairfax, Alexandria|work=NBC4 Washington|access-date=2018-08-11|language=en}}</ref> Citations are not enforceable due to no penalty being in place if they are ignored.<ref name=":0" />
*A 2007 literature review of the benefits and barriers to implementation of automated speed enforcement in the US. stated that "In general, the results of [public opinion] surveys indicate that a majority of respondents support automated enforcement. However, the margins of support vary widely, from a low of 51 percent in Washington, D.C. to a high of 77 percent in Scottsdale, Arizona."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.geckosecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Automated-Speed-Enforcement-in-the-U.S..pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160808023850/http://www.geckosecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Automated-Speed-Enforcement-in-the-U.S..pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=8 August 2016|title=Automated Speed Enforcement in the U.S.: A Review of the Literature on Benefits and Barriers to Implementation|last=Rodier, Shaheen, and Cavanagh|access-date=17 December 2012}}</ref>
*In 2009, a petition was started in the town of [[College Station, Texas]], which requested that all red light cameras be dismantled and removed from all of the town's intersections. Enough signatures were captured to put the measure on the November 2009 general election ballot. After an extensive battle between the College Station city council and the opposing sides, both for and against red light cameras, the voters voted to eliminate the red light cameras throughout the entire city. By the end of November, the red light cameras were taken down.
*On May 4, 2010, an ordinance authorizing the use of speed cameras in the town of [[Sykesville, Maryland]], was put to a referendum, in which 321 out of 529 voters (60.4%) voted against the cameras. The turnout for this vote was greater than the number of voters in the previous local Sykesville election for mayor where 523 voted.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/article_183c11e6-57ee-11df-9fc0-001cc4c03286.html |title=Sykesville residents reject speed camera referendum |access-date=May 5, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100508233213/http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/article_183c11e6-57ee-11df-9fc0-001cc4c03286.html |archive-date=May 8, 2010 }}</ref>
*Arizona decided not to renew their contract with Redflex in 2011 following a study of their statewide 76 photo enforcement cameras.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Public_Safety_Department_of/Performance/10-02/10-02.pdf|title=Department of Public Safety - Photo enforcement program|website=Azauditor.gov|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100716004636/http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Public_Safety_Department_of/Performance/10-02/10-02.pdf|archive-date=2010-07-16}}</ref> Reasons given included less than expected revenue due to improved compliance, mixed public acceptance and mixed accident data.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://redflex.com/public_documents/asx_announcements/2010-05-06%20Arizona%20Speed%20Contract.pdf|title=Arizona Speed Contract|website=Redflex.com|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100927072410/http://redflex.com/public_documents/asx_announcements/2010-05-06%20Arizona%20Speed%20Contract.pdf|archive-date=2010-09-27}}</ref>