As Indiana implements speed cameras for the first time, the decades-long conversation over automated traffic enforcement cameras is resurfacing, with supporters arguing cameras improve road safety, while critics question effectiveness and government overreach.
The conversation gained further attention in November 2024 when Christopher Bailey, the chief of police for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, wrote an op-ed in the IndyStar advocating for the use of red light and speed cameras.
Currently, Indiana state law does not grant cities the authority to use red light and speed cameras. However, House Enrolled Act 1015, which was signed into law in 2023, granted the Indiana Department of Transportation the right to pilot Indiana Safe Zones, implementing speed cameras in highway construction zones.
Speed and red-light cameras are automated enforcement technologies used to identify and ticket drivers who exceed speed limits or run red lights, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.
Bailey’s call for action comes amid nationwide concerns about road safety. In 2023, then-Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg declared a national crisis for traffic deaths, which claimed the lives of nearly 43,000 Americans in 2022. A 2022 report from the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety found that 35% of surveyed drivers reported speeding 10 miles per hour over the limit on residential streets, while 25% admitted to running red lights.
As of this February, 301 individual communities have speed cameras and 342 individual communities have redlight cameras across the U.S., according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Natalie Garrett, strategic communications director for INDOT, cited via email the 2024 Indiana Safe Zones annual report. The report states that during the four-month pre-enforcement period, where drivers were mailed warnings for speeding, but not fined, there was a 73% decrease in excessive speeding, which is driving 11 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
Ryan Robling, City of Bloomington planning services manager, said Bloomington would consider implementing redlight and speed cameras if the state allowed it.
“We have a number of intersections that are considered high-risk in the data traffic plan, and we would work from there,” he said.
Boulder, Colorado, a mid-sized college town like Bloomington, has found that speeding and running red lights are the two most common causes of fatal and serious-injury traffic crashes. Since redlight cameras were implemented in certain intersections in 1998, Boulder has seen a 70% decrease in traffic crashes caused by running red lights in those intersections.
Similarly, an Insurance Institute of Highway Safety study found that redlight cameras reduced fatal red-light-running crashes by 21% and all types of fatal crashes by 14% nationally.
Robling said the city currently relies on local law enforcement to enforce traffic laws, but with limited resources, it is unrealistic for law enforcement to always be present.
Criminology researchers have found that traditional police enforcement for running red lights has numerous risks, including the possibility of human bias and discrimination.
In lieu of traffic cameras, Bloomington utilizes other methods to improve traffic safety, which can be costly.
“We rely on a lot of infrastructure improvements, from redesigning existing road infrastructure in addition to intersection infrastructure, which can cost up to five to ten times more than traffic cameras,” Robling said.
Simple infrastructure improvements include forbidding right turns on red lights, while other, more costly improvements require the traffic lights to be replaced, Robling said.
“An example of these infrastructure improvements the city has implemented is speed feedback signs, which makes drivers more aware of their speeding,” he said. “But once people see that it is just monitoring, and realize it is not enforcing, it is not as effective.”
Robling also mentioned Bloomington’s Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan, an initiative aiming to reduce traffic injuries and deaths. Robling claimed the plan has high public reception, with upwards of 60% in support of the initiative. The plan could also potentially include traffic cameras if the state allows it in the future. It focuses on six key principles: death and serious injury are unacceptable, humans make mistakes, humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, safety is proactive and redundancy is crucial. A previous Indiana Daily Student article covered the plan’s key objectives of for more information.
To further advocate for policy changes from the state government, such as traffic enforcement cameras, the city employs a lobbyist.
“We currently have a lobbyist for the state, and we look for like-minded communities, such as Indianapolis, and join forces with them to try to enact those measures,” Robling said.
However, traffic enforcement cameras have faced concerns and controversy over driver privacy, cybersecurity risks and legal challenges.
Fred Cate, an IU senior fellow at the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, said via email that governments are typically able to use traffic cameras as there is no expectation of privacy in public. Still, there are guidelines that must be followed.
Cate said the courts have ruled that traffic cameras cannot be used to incentivize penalties against drivers or discriminate. Cameras can also not be monitored by private companies.
“Having a company install and monitor cameras and then paying them a percentage of revenue generated by tickets is not permitted because of the incentive to “cheat” and wrongfully fine innocent drivers,” Cate said.
Despite the benefits of traffic cameras, Cate said there are discrepancies in what the public views as reckless driving, which is why law enforcement is preferred.
“I haven’t met anyone, anywhere, in 35 years of working on privacy who likes the idea of traffic cameras,” he said. “For whatever reason, we prefer the judgment of police officers and the chance to explain what we were doing. Cameras seem not only impersonal and inhumane, and like another digital tool for raising revenue from the public.”
Robling said if the state did allow cities to use traffic enforcing cameras, places such as Bloomington would not have to manage the data collected.
“If a traffic camera program were implemented here in Bloomington, the city wouldn’t collect and store the data ourselves but instead be stored at a centralized facility by the state,” he said.
Cate said the risk of information misuse for technology is almost inevitable, but with appropriate oversight and regulation, its impact can be minimized.
“I don’t think we want to run from technology—it seems pointless to try—but rather we need to ensure we have thoughtful policies and laws in place, good oversight, and always a human in the loop,” he said.
INDOT communications director Garrett said the Indiana Safe Zones program has measures in place regarding driver privacy and data storage.
“The Safe Zones program only captures images of the rear of vehicles,” she said. “Photos of individual drivers are not captured or stored. Additionally, those working in the program have obtained specific security certifications to help ensure any data is handled appropriately.”
Garrett also referenced the Indiana Safe Zones FAQs, stating all images are state property, used only for traffic enforcement, deleted after two years and only accessible to authorized individuals.
Cate said it is important to create policies before traffic enforcement cameras are deployed and to have a response to every question that could be asked.
“Answering these and related questions in advance, in writing, and in public is key to reducing distrust and protecting privacy,” he said.
