Reformas al sistema de operación e interpretación.

Many opponents of automated enforcement argue that capturing a vehicle and/or a person with cameras is unconstitutional. The IIHS reports that state courts in California, Colorado, Oregon, and North Carolina, including the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Superior Court of the District of Columbia, have rejected constitutional challenges. However, some courts have asked cities to make changes in operational issues to settle disputes (61).

TABLE 16 Summary of Findings from Past Studies (51)

City Camera Sites Comparision /

reference group Comments Reference

Right-angle and left-turn opposed -50%

Rear end 25% to 60% Melbourne, Australia Installed at 46 Intersections 50 signalized instersections

RTM possible, no accounting for changes in traffic volumes; comparison sites possibly affected by spillover and other treatments

[South, et al., 1988](37b)

Victoria, Australia Lack of an effect could be that the sites

studied tended to have few red light- running related accidents; comparision sites may have been affect by spill over

[Andreassen, 1995](37c) Melbourne, Australia 3 intersections approaches at different intersections Noncamera approaches

Cross-sectional design is problemematic; likely spillover effects to the noncamera approaches at the same intersection

[Kent, et al., 1995](37d) Adelaide, Australia Installed at 13 intersections 14 signalized intersections

RTM and spillover to comparision sites are

issues not addressed [Mann, et al., _1994](37e) London, U.K. RLC at 12 intersections and 21 speed cameras Citywide effects examined

The results are confounded because two

programs are evaluated [London _Accident

Analysis Unit, 1997](37f)

Reductions at the camera sites were not statistically different from the reductions at the comparision sites No significant results

Regression to the Mean (RTM) bias possible; spillover may have affected comparision sites; results confounded by adjustment to signal timing in middle of study period

Crash type studied and estimated effects (negative indicates reduction)

No Significant results. Looked at right angle, right angle (turn), right against through, rear end, rear end (turn), other, all crashes, number of casualties, no signigicant results

No Significant results

No significant relationship between the frequency of crashes at RLC and non RLC sites and difference in red-light-running behavior

Sydney, Australia Installed at 16 Intersections

16 Signalized

intersection [Hiller, et al., _1993](37a)

TABLE 16 (continued)

City Camera Sites Comparision / reference _group Comment Reference

Various cities in England and Wales

Installed at 78 intersections

All injury -18% A simple before-and-after comparision not

controlling for effectes of other factors, RTM and traffic volume changes; therefore there is limited confidence in the results

[Hooke, et al., 1996](37g) All -7% Right angle -8% All -7% All injury -29% Right angle -32% Right-angle injury -69%

Rear end 3% (non-significant)

Angle - all approaches -37%

Angle - camera approaches

-60%

All - camera approaches -19%

Rear end - camera approaches 4% All <-1% Rear end -32% Right angle -42% Other -22% [Ng, et al., 1997](37h) [Retting and Kyrychenko, 2001](37i) [SafeLight, Charlotte](37j) [Maryland House of Delegates, 2001](37k)

Crash type studied and estimated effects (negative indicates reduction)

Singapore Installed at 42

intersections

42 signalized intersections RTM and spillover effects at comparision

sites are issues

Oxnard, CA Installed at 11

intersections

Unsignalized intersections in Oxnard and signalized intersecions in 3 similarly sized cities

Looked at citywide effects, not just at RLC sites

29 months of before-and-after data used Probable RTM in site selection

Howard County, MD

Installed at 25 intersections

Probably RTM in stie selection

Charlotte, NC Installed at 17

intersections

no comparison group

TABLE 16 (continued)

City Camera Sites Comparision /

reference group Comment Reference

San Francisco, CA Installed at 6 Intersections Citywide effects examined

Citywide injury collisions caused by red-light violators; unclear how these were defined

-9% Question on definition of RLC crashes; did not examine specific effects at treated sites [Fleck and Smith, 1998](37l) Comined-treatment quadrant -15.9% photo-radar quandrant -7.5% RLC quadrant -9.7% Control Quandrant -10.7% Crossing carelessly -54.0% Unsafe right turn -29.0% Failure to keep distance 8.0%

Other -29.0%

All per month -32.0% Glasgow,

Scotland

6 locations on 1 approach

Various Injury crashes related to RLR violations

-62.0% Probable RTM effects [Winn, 1995](37o)

It is unclear if the assignment of treatment of treatment/no treatment to the four quandrants was random

[Vinzant and Tatro, 1999](37m)

[Fox, 1996](37n)

RTM effects likely because the decreases in non-RLR crashes are greater than the RLR decreases at times, it is difficult to say what citywide effect the cameras have. Area wide effects on

injury crashes examed Installed at 8

intersections and 3 "pelican" crossings

Crash type studied and estimated effects (negative indicates reduction)

Glasgow, Scotland

Mesa, AZ 6 intersections with RLC only, 6 intersections with RLC plus photo speed enforcement 6 signalized intersections

Total crash rates-crashes per million entering vehicle at each intersection

Passetti notes that although there are no First Amendment cases that define or argue the right to privacy in a vehicle, the Supreme Court has defined privacy for marriage and/or a family. On the other hand, driving is considered a privilege, and not everyone is entitled or guaranteed to drive a vehicle (34). The act of driving is performed on public roads in front of the public eye, thus raising the question whether any

constitutional privacy laws protect a driver. Every driver receives a state driver’s license by taking a driving exam of some sort. Therefore the driver must abide by certain rules set by the state and federal government including abiding by traffic signals and regulatory traffic control devices. These driving laws are in place not only to protect the driver, but also to protect the public. In 1986, a court statement from NY v. Class (1986) read “Automobiles are justifiably the subject of pervasive regulation by the state. Every operator of a motor vehicle must expect that the State, in enforcing its regulations, will intrude to some extent upon that operator’s privacy

(61).” The result of this lawsuit included the United States Supreme Court determining it was legal for a police

officer to search databases for drivers based on the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and did not violate the Fourth Constitutional Amendment (search and seizure) (62).

In a landmark District of Columbia Supreme Court case, the plaintiff’s taxi-leasing company, Auto Ward, Inc., and Emelike U. Agomo filed a class action lawsuit against then Mayor Anthony A. Williams. Agomo was charged for 11 moving violations, which were captured by automated enforcement systems. Auto Ward, Inc. is a taxi-leasing firm in the District of Columbia, which was served with at least 57 moving violations that totaled $6,675.00. This lawsuit assumed the presumption of guilt violates the due process rights of the plaintiffs and an estimated 100,000 registered automobile owners. The main complaint in this lawsuit was a third-party company was hired by the District of Columbia to try and identify the owners of each of the automobiles involved in the class action lawsuit. Furthermore, it was argued that this third-party company accurately described the movement of the vehicle, and accurately described the date, time, and license plate number. However, the plaintiffs believed capturing, identifying, and charging drivers violated the Fifth Constitutional Amendment (trial and punishment, compensation for takings), which the District of Columbia ruled constitutional (63).

Quoted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, it also noted in 2003 remark that a judge in the District of Columbia made during Agomo v. Williams (2003):

[The] fact that there are a high number of persons photographed running the traffic signal or operating at excessive speeds is an example of the magnitude of the problem facing city officials trying to correct a growing situation. Although cameras operated by the Government are a concern regarding privacy issues, those concerns are outweighed by the legitimate concerns of safety on our public streets. (61)