License Plate Hunter Cameras: How They Work & Where They're Used

License plate hunter cameras—formally known as Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)—are specialized surveillance systems designed to automatically capture and analyze license plate data in real time. As discussed in PhotoEnforced's original article, these devices are often mistaken for speed or red-light cameras, but their primary function is vehicle identification rather than issuing direct traffic tickets.

In the last decade, ALPR systems have become a common sight on highways, at toll booths, in parking garages, and even in residential neighborhoods. Their rapid adoption is driven by their ability to process thousands of license plates per hour, integrate with vast databases, and provide immediate alerts to authorities when a match is found.

How License Plate Hunter Cameras Work

The core technology behind ALPR involves a high-resolution camera paired with optical character recognition (OCR) software. This combination allows the system to “read” license plates, regardless of whether the vehicle is moving at high speed or parked. Infrared imaging is frequently used so the system can function in darkness, rain, fog, or glare conditions.

When a plate is captured, the system typically records:

• The license plate number
• Date and time of capture
• GPS coordinates or fixed location data
• A photo of the vehicle (often showing make, model, and color)

The recorded information is then compared against one or more databases. These may include stolen vehicle lists, active warrant notices, wanted persons alerts, unpaid toll violations, or other watchlists. Matches can trigger real-time alerts to patrol officers or dispatch centers.

Key Applications of ALPR Technology

1. Law Enforcement: Police departments use ALPR to detect stolen vehicles, track suspects, locate missing persons, and solve crimes. A single patrol car equipped with ALPR can scan thousands of plates per shift.
2. Toll Collection: Many toll roads have eliminated cash booths entirely, relying on ALPR to identify vehicles and bill the registered owner.
3. Parking Management: In garages and municipal lots, ALPR automates entry and exit logging, enforces permit requirements, and streamlines payment verification.
4. Private Security: Gated communities, corporate campuses, and logistics hubs use ALPR to monitor and log all vehicle entries and exits, enhancing security without adding guard staff.
5. Traffic Analysis: Transportation departments use ALPR data to monitor congestion patterns, calculate travel times, and plan roadway improvements.

Advantages of License Plate Hunter Cameras

ALPR systems deliver benefits that manual observation cannot match:

• Continuous operation, day and night
• Rapid, automated identification without human intervention
• Integration with national, state, and local databases
• Long-term storage for investigative purposes
• Ability to process large traffic volumes efficiently

These strengths have made ALPR a cornerstone of modern traffic enforcement and vehicle monitoring efforts.

Privacy & Legal Concerns

Despite their utility, license plate hunter cameras have drawn criticism from privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations. The core concern is that ALPR allows mass surveillance of ordinary drivers without their knowledge or consent. Specific issues include:

• Data Retention: In some jurisdictions, plate scans are deleted after 48 hours; in others, they may be kept for years.
• Access Control: Questions remain over who can access the data and whether it is shared with private companies or other government agencies.
• Potential for Abuse: Without strict oversight, ALPR data could be misused for tracking individuals for non-law-enforcement purposes.

Some U.S. states have passed laws regulating ALPR usage, retention, and sharing, while others have yet to address the technology in legislation. Court rulings have also begun to shape the legal boundaries, with some judges questioning whether prolonged, warrantless tracking violates the Fourth Amendment.

Where You’ll Find ALPR Cameras

License plate hunter cameras can be either fixed or mobile. Common installation points include:

• Highway overpasses
• Traffic signals and busy intersections
• Toll plazas and express lanes
• School safety zones
• Police patrol vehicles
• Parking garage entrances and exits
• Industrial or residential gated entries

In mobile form, ALPR cameras mounted on police cruisers can scan vehicles parked along streets or traveling nearby in real time.

Case Study: Neighborhood ALPR Networks

Some private companies have expanded ALPR into residential security. For example, Flock Safety operates networks in thousands of U.S. neighborhoods, capturing billions of license plate scans each month. These systems are marketed as tools to reduce crime by sharing data directly with local police departments when a match occurs. Supporters cite significant reductions in burglary and theft rates, while critics raise concerns about continuous tracking and the absence of clear opt-out options for residents.

Potential Risks and Misidentification

ALPR accuracy is generally high, but it is not flawless. Misreads can occur due to dirty or damaged plates, unusual fonts, lighting conditions, or obstructions. In rare cases, such errors have led to mistaken stops or arrests, underscoring the need for human verification before taking enforcement action.

Future Trends in License Plate Recognition

ALPR technology continues to evolve rapidly. Artificial intelligence now enables systems to identify vehicles by make, model, and color in addition to plate numbers. Predictive analytics may soon allow law enforcement to anticipate vehicle movements based on past patterns. Smaller, cheaper units are making it possible to install ALPR in more locations, including portable units for temporary deployments.

As cities adopt “smart traffic” infrastructure, ALPR data is likely to be integrated with other sources such as traffic sensors, GPS feeds, and even facial recognition systems. These integrations promise greater efficiency in traffic management and public safety but will also raise deeper privacy debates.

Balancing Security and Privacy

License plate hunter cameras can make communities safer, speed up investigations, and modernize transportation systems. However, unchecked deployment risks eroding public trust. Policymakers, law enforcement, and private operators must balance the legitimate benefits of ALPR with strong safeguards to prevent misuse.

Transparency measures such as public notice of camera locations, limits on data retention, and independent audits can help ensure that the technology serves the public good without compromising individual freedoms.

Conclusion

License plate hunter cameras have transformed vehicle monitoring from a manual process into a sophisticated, automated system capable of scanning and analyzing vast amounts of data instantly. Whether used by police, toll agencies, parking operators, or private security, these systems are now a permanent feature of modern transportation networks. The challenge moving forward will be ensuring that their use aligns with both public safety needs and the fundamental right to privacy.

Are Traffic Cameras Legal in Los Angeles, California?

The debate over red light cameras in Los Angeles has been ongoing for more than a decade. As the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners prepares to decide whether to approve the LAPD’s request for a new multi-year, multi-million-dollar contract for the city’s Photo Red-Light Program, drivers, taxpayers, and policymakers alike are asking an important question: Are traffic cameras legal in Los Angeles, California, and do they actually work?    Are Traffic Cameras Legal In Los Angeles, California?

This article explores the legal battles, financial controversies, and political disputes surrounding Los Angeles’ red light camera program. We’ll look at who profits, who pays, and why many California cities have abandoned cameras altogether.

LAPD’s Request for a New Contract

The Los Angeles Police Department has asked the city to approve a new contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the Arizona-based vendor currently operating the system. According to the LAPD, the new deal would keep the cameras running for several more years across dozens of busy intersections.

But the numbers don’t look good for the city’s bottom line. Under the proposed agreement, Los Angeles would actually lose a minimum of $1.5 million per year. Critics argue that no safety program should run at such a steep loss, especially when the public continues to question its effectiveness.

Arizona Boycott Controversy

Adding to the drama, ATS is headquartered in Arizona. Years ago, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution boycotting Arizona-based companies in protest of the state’s immigration policies. Now, with the LAPD pushing to sign a new deal with ATS, watchdog groups are pointing out the contradiction.

How can the city uphold a boycott while awarding a multi-million-dollar contract to an Arizona company? This inconsistency could sway the vote when commissioners meet to decide the fate of the program.

The Role of Safer Streets L.A.

Safer Streets L.A., a grassroots organization dedicated to motorist safety, has been one of the loudest voices opposing red light cameras in the city. The group argues that the cameras are less about safety and more about revenue generation, punishing drivers while failing to reduce accidents.

According to Safer Streets L.A., there is a growing chance that enough members of the Police Commission Board will reject the LAPD proposal, effectively ending the city’s red light camera program once and for all.

The organization also highlights the questionable ethics of ATS, pointing to reports that the company has engaged in manipulative campaigns designed to sway public opinion in favor of cameras. Publications such as the HeraldNet and Spokesman have reported on similar controversies involving the vendor in other states.

Do Red Light Cameras Improve Safety?

At the core of this debate is the question of whether cameras make streets safer. Studies have shown mixed results:

• Supporters argue that cameras reduce dangerous T-bone collisions caused by drivers running red lights.

• Opponents counter that while some collisions decrease, rear-end accidents often increase as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid tickets.

Safer Streets L.A. has published multiple reports claiming that Los Angeles’ red light cameras have not produced measurable safety improvements. Instead, they argue, the program simply transfers money from residents to an out-of-state corporation.

The Cost of Fighting a Ticket

In Los Angeles, getting caught by a red light camera can cost $490 or more once state fees are included. But that’s not all. Many drivers who challenge their citations end up spending thousands in legal fees. Some local traffic attorneys have become experts at fighting camera tickets, often getting them dismissed due to errors in the citation process.

These frequent court challenges are one reason the program is financially unsustainable. If drivers are beating tickets in court, the city and ATS are collecting less money, leaving taxpayers to cover the operating costs.

Why Other California Cities Shut Down Cameras

Los Angeles is not the only California city to face these challenges. In fact, more than 60 cities across the state have already abandoned their red light camera programs after facing similar problems. Cities like Berkeley, Pasadena, and San Diego found that the financial and political costs outweighed the benefits.

Opponents argue Los Angeles should follow suit, ending the program rather than extending it for several more years at a loss.

Legal Questions About Enforceability

Another wrinkle is the question of whether camera tickets are even enforceable under California law. While the state allows photo enforcement programs, courts have ruled that evidence must be reliable and drivers must be properly identified.

In some cases, drivers have successfully argued that mailed citations lack proper legal foundation because the officer who signs them did not personally witness the violation. These arguments, combined with public resentment, have further weakened support for the program.

Ethics and Public Trust

The LAPD and city officials have a responsibility not just to enforce traffic laws, but also to uphold public trust. Partnering with a company accused of questionable lobbying tactics raises concerns about transparency and accountability.

If residents believe cameras are more about money than safety, compliance drops and resentment grows. For programs like this to work, the public must view them as fair and effective.

What Happens Next?

The Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners is scheduled to hold a meeting at 9:30 a.m. at the Police Administration Building, 100 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA. At that meeting, they will vote on whether to approve the LAPD’s request.

If the board votes against the contract, Los Angeles’ red light camera program could be shut down for good. If they approve, the city will continue paying millions to keep the cameras running—despite public opposition and financial losses.

The Bigger Picture

The fight over red light cameras in Los Angeles represents a larger debate happening nationwide. Cities across the United States are grappling with whether automated enforcement is the future of traffic safety or an outdated, ineffective cash grab.

Los Angeles, with its size and influence, could set an example for other municipalities. Ending the program might signal to other cities that it’s time to rethink photo enforcement altogether.

Conclusion

So, are traffic cameras legal in Los Angeles, California? Yes, they are allowed under state law—but legality doesn’t necessarily mean they make sense for the city. Between financial losses, ethical questions, legal challenges, and public opposition, the red light camera program faces a tough road ahead.

The upcoming Police Commission vote will determine whether Los Angeles doubles down on this controversial technology or joins dozens of other California cities in pulling the plug.

One thing is certain: the decision will affect not just drivers, but also the city’s reputation for balancing public safety with fairness and fiscal responsibility.

References:

Spokesman
Againstallclods

The Board of Police Commissioners meeting will take place at 9:30am at the Police Administration Building 100 West 1st Street. LA, CA. Safer Streets L.A. studies regarding red-light cameras can be viewed and downloaded for free at Saferstreetsla.org/reports

How Many Cities & Countries Use Red Light and Speed Cameras?

How Many Cities Use Red Light and Speed Cameras?

Automated traffic enforcement using red light and speed cameras is a growing trend worldwide, although its implementation varies significantly by region. These systems are used to deter dangerous driving behavior, improve road safety, and reduce traffic-related injuries and deaths.

Red Light Cameras in the United States

Red light cameras are currently in use in approximately 338 U.S. communities, marking a decline from the over 500 cities that operated such systems a decade ago. These programs are permitted in 22 states and the District of Columbia, with large metro areas like New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. leading the way.

Rank	City	Approximate Number of Cameras	Camera Types Used	Notes
1	New York City, NY	2,200+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Largest U.S. program; 750 school zones covered
2	Washington, D.C.	5,000+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Most traffic cameras per capita in the U.S.
3	Chicago, IL	527+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Extensive program; significant revenue from fines
4	San Francisco, CA	33+	Speed Cameras	New program with income-based fines; 50 cameras planned
5	Los Angeles, CA	33+	Speed Cameras	Pilot program initiated; fines based on income
6	Philadelphia, PA	300+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Focus on high-risk intersections
7	Seattle, WA	100+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Active enforcement in school zones
8	Denver, CO	100+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Implemented to reduce accidents
9	Phoenix, AZ	100+	Speed Cameras, Red Light	Comprehensive citywide coverage
10	San Diego, CA	100+	Speed Cameras, Red Light

These cameras are typically placed at high-risk intersections and are credited with reducing angle collisions and red light running violations. In some areas, their effectiveness has led to a decrease in the number of cameras needed over time.

Keywords: red light camera statistics, red light enforcement USA, cities with red light cameras

Speed Cameras in the United States

Speed camera programs are in operation in about 195 U.S. cities, with legal authorization in 19 states and the District of Columbia. These cameras are often deployed in school zones, high-accident corridors, and areas where speeding is a persistent problem.

For example, New York City operates over 2,000 speed cameras near schools. Between 2019 and 2021, data showed a 73% drop in speeding violations at fixed locations, highlighting the effectiveness of the system in reducing dangerous driving.

Keywords: speed camera usage USA, speed enforcement cities, speed cameras near schools

Global Camera Use: Red Light and Speed Enforcement Worldwide

Worldwide, the number of traffic enforcement cameras far exceeds those in the U.S. Combined, there are more than 118,000 red light and speed cameras around the globe.

• Red light cameras worldwide: Over 19,000

• Speed cameras worldwide: Over 80,000

The top countries with the most traffic enforcement cameras include:

Rank	Country	Red Light Cameras	Speed Cameras	Total Cameras
1	Brazil	1,170	14,210	15,380
2	Italy	2,321	8,104	10,425
3	United States	3,974	4,001	7,975
4	United Kingdom	811	4,004	4,815
5	Germany	408	3,869	4,277
6	France	720	2,969	3,689
7	United Arab Emirates	482	2,109	2,591
8	Sweden	0	2,487	2,487
9	Spain	377	1,598	1,975
10	Turkey	70	1,427	1,497
11	Austria	177	1,245	1,422
12	Argentina	470	772	1,242
13	Belgium	68	1,163	1,231
14	Finland	45	1,057	1,102
15	Canada	774	279	1,053
16	Taiwan	308	712	1,020
17	Poland	208	534	742
18	Australia	335	264	599
19	Morocco	7	548	555
20	Croatia	12	513	525

This shows a strong global commitment to improving traffic safety through automated enforcement.

Keywords: global red light camera statistics, worldwide speed camera data, countries with most speed cameras

Legal and Policy Differences

In the U.S., state-level laws govern whether red light and speed cameras can be used. While some states fully embrace these systems, others have banned or heavily restricted them. For example, Texas has prohibited red light cameras, although some cities were allowed to maintain them until contracts expired.

These legal differences make the U.S. a patchwork of enforcement zones, where drivers may face automatic fines in one state but not the next.

Keywords: red light camera laws by state, speed camera legal states, U.S. automated enforcement laws

Conclusion

Red light and speed cameras continue to play a major role in promoting road safety in the U.S. and around the world. While their use is growing globally, adoption in the U.S. remains dependent on local and state policy. Cities that do use these systems have often seen measurable improvements in driver behavior and road safety.

Keywords summary: how many cities use red light cameras, speed camera statistics USA, red light enforcement worldwide, traffic camera usage by country

Illinois Lawmakers Have Considered Statewide Bans on Red Light Cameras

Lawmakers in Springfield, Illinois are set to debate a new bill this week that could lead to a statewide ban on automated red light cameras—a move that may dramatically change how traffic enforcement is handled across the state.

Proposed Bill Could Eliminate Red Light Cameras in Illinois

The legislation, which has garnered bipartisan support from both leading Republicans and Democrats, seeks to eliminate the authority of counties and municipalities to use automated red light cameras. These systems, which automatically issue tickets to drivers who enter intersections after the light turns red, have been widely deployed throughout Chicago and its suburbs.

What remains unclear is whether the proposed ban would apply only to new camera installations or if existing red light cameras would be removed as well. Historically, similar efforts in other states have allowed existing contracts with camera vendors—such as Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS)—to run their course before requiring removal.

Illinois Among the Top States for Red Light Cameras

According to PhotoEnforced.com, Illinois is one of the fastest-growing states for red light camera usage. The site tracks the growth of traffic enforcement cameras nationwide, and its open database reports over 700 monitored intersections across Illinois. More than two-thirds of those are located in Chicago, making it one of the most heavily monitored cities in the country.

The Ongoing Debate: Safety vs. Revenue

Supporters of red light cameras argue that they help reduce traffic collisions, especially at high-risk intersections. They claim the threat of a ticket encourages safer driving behavior and saves lives.

However, opponents argue that the cameras are more about generating revenue than improving road safety. Many critics cite short yellow light times and lack of due process as reasons to discontinue their use. Others point to data suggesting that while T-bone accidents may decline, rear-end collisions often increase due to sudden braking at camera-equipped intersections.

What's Next?

The outcome of Tuesday’s legislative session could determine the future of automated traffic enforcement in Illinois. If the bill passes, it may set a precedent for other states considering similar bans.

Drivers, local governments, and traffic safety advocates across Illinois will be closely watching to see whether lawmakers prioritize public safety or choose to pull the plug on a controversial enforcement tool.

List of Red Light Camera Programs Active & Discontinued in CA

Our database currently tracks approximately 49 cities that have active red light camera locations. California currently has 385+ active red light camera locations (intersections) remaining.  In the last 10 years approximately 75 cities have removed or shutdown red light camera programs in California.

Below is a list of cities that have active red light camera programs.  Please comment below if we need to update our information.  Some intersections have multiple cameras and this list only accounts for only the active intersection.

City	Cameras
Bakersfield	15
Beverly Hills	11
Canoga Park	3
Capitola	1
Carmichael	1
Cathedral City	4
Cerritos	3
Citrus Heights	10
Commerce	4
Covina	7
Culver City	14
Daly City	4
Del Mar	3
East Los Angeles	1
Elk Grove	6
Encinitas	3
Fremont	11
Garden Grove	7
Hawthorne	2
Hollywood	3
Los Alamitos	2
Los Angeles	78
Lynwood	1
Mar Vista	1
Menlo Park	5
Millbrae	1
Modesto	4
Montebello	7
Napa	3
Newark	2
N. Hollywood	3
Oxnard	10
Rancho Cordova	3
Redding	5
Redwood City	3
Sacramento	39
San Francisco	32
San Leandro	9
San Mateo	3
Santa Ana	14
Santa Clarita	7
Santa Cruz	1
Solana Beach	2
Tarzana	2
Van Nuys	7
Ventura	19
Vista	6
Winnetka	1
Woodland Hills	2
Grand Total	385

Below is a list of 75 cities in California that have removed cameras or shutdown red light camera programs. 

Anaheim, Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Belmont, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Burlingame, Cerritos, Compton, Corona, Costa Mesa, Davis, El Cajon, El Monte, Emeryville, Escondido, Fairfield, Fresno, Fullerton, Gardena, Glendale, Grand Terrace, Hayward, Hesperia, Highland, Huntington Beach, Indian Wells, Inglewood, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Los Angeles, Manteca, Marysville, Melrose, Modesto, Montclair, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Napa, Oakland, Oceanside, Orange, Paramount, Pasadena, Poway, Redlands, Redwood City, Riverside, Rocklin, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Carlos, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan Capistrano, San Rafael, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Rosa, South Gate, South San Francisco, Stockton, Turlock, Upland, Victorville, Vista, Walnut, West Hollywood, Whittier, Yuba City & Yucaipa

Albuquerque Red-Light Cameras: What Happened and What’s Next?

 

The Rise and Fall of Albuquerque’s Red-Light Camera Program

In the mid-2000s, Albuquerque was one of many U.S. cities to adopt red-light cameras at busy intersections. Operated under contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, these cameras were promoted as a way to reduce collisions and discourage dangerous driving. By 2010, however, the program was under fire. City audits showed that it was running at a $30,000 monthly deficit, partly due to equipment costs and partly due to disputes over whether the cameras truly improved safety. Many drivers and elected officials also believed the program was more about generating revenue than protecting the public. Public confidence continued to erode. Studies conducted by the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Social Research found mixed results. Some intersections saw fewer crashes, while others recorded more rear-end accidents as drivers slammed on their brakes to avoid tickets. By late 2010, Albuquerque let its contract with Redflex expire. The cameras were officially shut down on December 31, 2011, after a ballot initiative showed little public support for keeping them. That decision ended one of New Mexico’s most controversial traffic enforcement experiments.

Why the Red-Light Program Failed

Several factors contributed to the downfall: Financial Deficit: Unlike in other cities where camera enforcement generated millions, Albuquerque’s system cost more than it brought in. Safety Concerns: Data did not clearly prove that cameras reduced serious crashes. Public Perception: Many residents felt the cameras were unfair, invasive, or poorly managed. Legal Pushback: Lawsuits challenged the fairness of automated enforcement, further weakening support. Ultimately, the city concluded the program wasn’t worth continuing — joining other communities nationwide that abandoned red-light enforcement.  Albuquerque cameras actually Increased Accidents. 

The Shift to Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE)

While red-light cameras disappeared, Albuquerque did not abandon automated enforcement entirely. In fact, the city pivoted to a new system: Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) cameras. Launched in the early 2020s as part of the Vision Zero initiative, ASE cameras are designed to reduce speeding on high-crash corridors. Instead of targeting red-light runners, these devices capture images of vehicles exceeding posted speed limits.

How ASE Cameras Work

Cameras measure a vehicle’s speed using radar or sensors. If a driver is above the threshold, the system captures photos and video. A civil citation is mailed to the registered vehicle owner. Tickets are not criminal offenses; they function more like parking fines. Unlike the old red-light system, ASE tickets do not add points to a driver’s license and cannot be used by insurers to raise premiums.

Where Are the Cameras Now?

As of late 2023, Albuquerque had installed 20 fixed speed cameras across 16 major roads and intersections. These locations were chosen based on crash data and speeding trends. Common corridors include Montgomery Blvd., Central Ave., Coors Blvd., and Unser Blvd. The city posts signs warning drivers of photo enforcement zones, but the cameras still catch thousands of violators each month.

The Financial Picture

In its first 18 months, Albuquerque’s speed camera program issued nearly 150,000 citations. Of those, about 47% were paid, generating over $6 million in revenue. The money is divided among three entities: the City of Albuquerque, the State of New Mexico, and the private vendor providing the camera equipment. Each received roughly $1.9 million. However, compliance remains a challenge. More than half of ticketed drivers never paid, leaving the city to decide whether to pursue collection or simply treat the fines as civil infractions.

Enforcement Challenges

The city designed the ASE program to be less punitive than the old red-light system, but that softer approach has trade-offs. No Points or License Suspensions: Tickets are civil, so there’s less incentive to pay. High Non-Payment Rates: Over 50% of citations remain unpaid. Delayed Spending: Although revenue was supposed to fund Vision Zero street improvements, reports show much of the money has not yet been used for that purpose. Community Service Option: Drivers can choose community service instead of paying the fine, but only about 1% have taken that route.

Expansion Into Bernalillo County

Albuquerque is not alone in using cameras. Surrounding Bernalillo County has started installing its own speed cameras along dangerous roads such as Tramway and Coors. These county-run cameras issue $100 citations, with the option of paying just $25 plus community service. Like the city program, the tickets are civil penalties, not criminal violations.

Do Cameras Actually Work?

The effectiveness of automated cameras remains a hot debate. Supporters argue: Cameras reduce speeding at targeted locations, lower speeds lead to fewer severe crashes, and enforcement is consistent and not biased like human policing. Critics counter: Many drivers simply don’t pay their tickets, some studies show cameras shift — rather than eliminate — crash risks, and programs often look more like revenue generators than safety solutions. In Albuquerque, early data suggests a 7% reduction in average speeds at camera locations, but whether that translates into long-term crash reductions is still being studied.

What Drivers Should Know Today

1. No Red-Light Cameras: Albuquerque has not used them since 2011.

2. Speed Cameras Are Active: 20 cameras operate on major streets citywide.

3. Tickets Are Civil: No points, no insurance hikes, but unpaid fines can still go to collections.

4. Revenue Use Is Under Scrutiny: While millions have been collected, little has yet been spent on promised safety improvements.

5. County Cameras Are Coming: Bernalillo County is adding its own enforcement network.

Conclusion

Albuquerque’s experiment with red-light cameras ended more than a decade ago after financial losses and public backlash. But the city has since embraced a new generation of automated speed enforcement cameras as part of its Vision Zero safety push. Whether this approach succeeds where red-light cameras failed remains to be seen. The system is generating millions in fines, but with compliance issues and lingering skepticism, its ultimate value will depend on whether it truly saves lives — or just fills city coffers.

New Jersey Red Light Cameras: Why They Were Removed

Will New Jersey Red Light Cameras Be Removed for Good?

For decades, New Jersey has been at the center of the national debate over red light cameras. These automated enforcement devices were once pitched as a solution to intersection crashes, but they quickly became a symbol of controversy. With the state’s red light camera program officially shut down in 2014, the lingering question remains: Will New Jersey ever bring them back, or are they gone for good?

Background: How New Jersey’s Red Light Cameras Started

In 2009, New Jersey launched a pilot program that allowed municipalities to install red light cameras at selected intersections. The stated purpose was straightforward: reduce traffic collisions caused by drivers running red lights. The cameras used sensors and automated imaging to capture vehicles that entered intersections after the signal turned red, and tickets were mailed to the registered owners.

Initially, more than 70 intersections across 25 municipalities participated in the program. Cities such as Newark, Jersey City, and Elizabeth adopted the technology, and private companies operated the cameras in exchange for a share of the fine revenue.

At first, supporters touted the cameras as life-saving tools. The theory was that automated enforcement would deter reckless driving, change driver behavior, and reduce the number of dangerous T-bone crashes at busy intersections.

Growing Public Backlash

Despite the safety claims, New Jersey drivers quickly voiced frustration with the program. Residents complained about:

• Unfair Tickets: Many violations involved rolling right turns on red, where drivers slowed but didn’t come to a complete stop.

• Yellow Light Timing: Some believed yellow light times were shortened to increase violations and revenue.

• Lack of Transparency: Ticket revenue-sharing agreements with private vendors raised concerns about profit motives.

• Delayed Notification: Tickets often arrived weeks later, leaving drivers unable to recall the incident or gather evidence to contest it.

By 2013, public sentiment had turned sharply against the cameras. Petitions circulated, lawsuits were filed, and grassroots campaigns urged lawmakers to end the program. Advocacy groups argued that cameras were less about safety and more about generating millions in revenue for cities and camera vendors.

Legal and Political Challenges

As the backlash intensified, lawmakers faced pressure to reevaluate the program. Governor Chris Christie acknowledged the widespread dissatisfaction and expressed reluctance to expand automated enforcement.

In 2012, controversy erupted when some municipalities were accused of using cameras that didn’t meet state certification standards. This led to a temporary suspension of ticketing at certain intersections and further eroded public confidence.

Meanwhile, other states began questioning their own programs. Court rulings in Florida, California, and Illinois raised doubts about due process and vendor involvement in ticket processing. New Jersey lawmakers took note of these developments as the state’s pilot program neared its expiration date.

End of the Pilot Program in 2014

The turning point came in December 2014. The legislation authorizing New Jersey’s red light camera pilot program expired, and lawmakers chose not to renew it. This decision effectively shut down all red light cameras statewide, making New Jersey one of the first states to abandon the technology after initially embracing it.

When the program ended, more than 500,000 violations had been issued across participating municipalities. The revenue impact was significant—millions of dollars in annual fines disappeared from city budgets overnight. Yet, many residents celebrated the program’s end as a victory for fairness and accountability.

Safety Impact: Did Cameras Work?

The key question still debated today is whether red light cameras actually made New Jersey roads safer. Studies conducted during the pilot produced mixed results:

• Rear-End Collisions: Some data showed an increase in rear-end crashes at camera-equipped intersections, as drivers slammed on their brakes to avoid tickets.

• T-Bone Crashes: On the other hand, angle collisions (often the most deadly) appeared to decline in some locations.

• Driver Behavior: Anecdotal evidence suggested that while some drivers became more cautious, others grew frustrated and more aggressive.

The conflicting data made it difficult to justify extending the program, particularly when weighed against the public’s perception that the cameras were unfair and revenue-driven.

Municipal Fallout: Losing Revenue

For towns and cities that had grown dependent on red light camera revenue, the program’s end created budget challenges. Some municipalities had used the money to fund local traffic safety initiatives, while others relied on the fines to cover general expenses.

Without cameras, enforcement returned solely to local police officers, who could use discretion in issuing citations. This shift restored a sense of fairness for drivers but reduced the steady stream of automated revenue.

Lessons from New Jersey’s Experience

New Jersey’s experiment with red light cameras offers important lessons for other states considering or currently using automated enforcement:

1. Public Trust Matters: Without transparency and clear communication, programs will be viewed as “cash grabs.”

2. Yellow Light Timing Is Critical: Any suspicion that lights are shortened undermines legitimacy.

3. Vendor Contracts Need Oversight: Profit-sharing agreements fuel distrust and create conflicts of interest.

4. Safety Data Must Be Clear: Mixed results make it difficult to justify controversial programs.

Other states, such as Texas and South Carolina, have also banned red light cameras in recent years, often citing similar reasons.

Will Red Light Cameras Return to New Jersey?

As of 2025, New Jersey has not shown any signs of reviving its red light camera program. Lawmakers remain wary of the political fallout, and residents continue to view the cameras negatively.

However, new technologies—such as speed safety cameras in school zones—are gaining traction in other states. Some advocates believe New Jersey may eventually revisit automated enforcement under different guidelines, perhaps focusing narrowly on school or work zones rather than general intersection monitoring.

For now, though, red light cameras in the Garden State remain history.

Conclusion

New Jersey’s red light camera program was one of the most contentious traffic enforcement efforts in the state’s history. Launched with the goal of improving safety, it ended in widespread backlash, legal challenges, and ultimately a complete shutdown.

The story highlights the delicate balance between safety and revenue, technology and fairness, enforcement and public trust. While some states continue to expand automated enforcement, New Jersey stands as a clear example of how public opinion can drive policy.

For New Jersey drivers, the message is clear: red light cameras are gone, and for the foreseeable future, they’re not coming back.

When the Cost to Operate Red Light Cameras Doesn't Make Sense

Red light cameras have long been a topic of debate among city planners, government officials, and drivers alike. Originally implemented to promote safety and deter traffic violations, these automated systems have proven effective in reducing dangerous behavior at intersections. However, as time goes on, there is growing concern about whether the cost to operate red light cameras justifies keeping them in place.

In this article, we’ll explore the factors contributing to the cost of maintaining red light cameras and analyze situations where it may no longer be sensible for cities to continue their operation.

The Cost of Operating Red Light Cameras

San Juan Capistrano Removing Cameras

The San Juan Capistrano City Council voted unanimously Wednesday not to renew the city's $232,000 annual contract with American Traffic Solutions. Since the cameras' installation in 2001, traffic tickets through the program have generated as much as $400,000 in revenue over expenses for the city. The tickets carry fines of about $500 each. The city was facing declining revenue and souring negative public opinion.

The decline in citations and a growing number of legal challenges have cut revenue by more than half within a year, officials say. The red-light program is projected to lose about $40,000 this year. Red-light camera citations will cease after Sept. 29. The city will extend its contract with American Traffic Solutions through December to finish processing tickets already in the system.

The cameras photograph the car and the driver, and tickets are issued by mail based on the vehicle's license and registration information. But an appellate court decision has made it more difficult for cities to defend automated citations, causing some to reevaluate their use of the cameras. An appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court judges ruled in 2010 in the appeal of a red-light ticket that photos and video submitted by police were inadmissible as evidence. The panel said the photos and video were hearsay because no officer actually saw the driver run the red light.

The Laguna Woods City Council will consider terminating its red-light camera program at its Wednesday meeting as well.  Read the full article. 

Pasadena Shutting Down Red Light Cameras

The end is near for the flashing red light cameras throughout Pasadena over the past five years.  After court challenges nixed red light cameras in Los Angeles, cost overruns in Pasadena's own red light program contributed to its demise, officials said. The city spent close to $350,000 to operate the red light camera program and hauled in about $340,000, which Pasadena split with the state. The program lost money and now Pasadena will terminate its contract with red light camera operator American Traffic Solutions.

Pasadena found itself saddled with a camera system that captured red-light runners, but a court reluctant to enforced the tickets. Since motorists received their tickets in the mail and didn't sign an agreement to appear in court at the time of the citation, they could not be bound to show up or pay the fine, the court decided. The Los Angeles Superior Court essentially said it was OK for drivers caught on camera to skip court dates.  

Loma Linda Red Light Cameras Turned Off & Lengthens Yellow Lights

Loma Linda has switched off the city’s red-light cameras earlier five years after they were installed at four intersections and has lengthened their yellow lights to solve the traffic accident problems. The cameras caught 20 red-light runners per day at a cost of nearly $500 a ticket which is $10,000 or approximately $300,000 per month. City officials said 80% of the traffic tickets written were for illegal right turn violations spotted by the cameras were for people making right-hand turns at 5 miles per hour and not coming to a complete stop.

So what was the trouble keep them profitable? Were they not collecting the ticket revenue? City officials claim most of the revenue went to the Redflex that managed the system or about $15 million according to Loma Linda officials. The city got only about $50,000 a year or $200,000 of the $15M in revenue generated. Redflex Traffic Systems, which operated the cameras at four intersections: Barton Road at Anderson Street and Mountain View Avenue, and Redlands Boulevard at Anderson and Mountain View.

Watch how some residents got out of the tickets and how the city solved the problem by making longer yellow traffic lights.

Cities Removing Red Light Camera Locations

Here is a continually updated list of cities that have removed or partially removed red light camera locations recently.  Subscribe to our red light camera locations database to get a full list of detailed locations.  Keep in mind some States and County jurisdictions have passed laws preventing the use of red-light cameras but Cities and Municipalities continue to use them illegally.  To remove a location please provide a link to a local newspaper article highlighting the City Council's decision to remove the cameras.  We are only concerned with locations that have been permanently removed and not those that have been deactivated temporarily.

Anchorage, AK
Arlington, TX
Avondale, CA
Burlingame, CA
Brooksville, FL
College Station, TX
Costa Mesa, CA
Lilburn, GA
Loma Linda, CA
Lubbock, TX
Melbourne, FL
Monterey Park, CA
Moreno Valley, CA
Naperville, FL
Norcross, GA
Peoria, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Redlands, CA
San Carlos, CA
Scottsdale, AZ
Springfield, MO
Snellville, GA
Suwanee, GA
St. Peters, FL
Union City, CA
Wilmington, NC
Yucaipa, CA

As always, please email us if we are missing any cities on this list or still have locations listed in our public database that should be removed.

Related Articles:
How Many US Cities Use Red Light Cameras
Arizona Freeway Speed Cameras Go Bye Bye
Moreno Valley Dumps Red Light Cameras
Avondale Arizona Shuts Down Red Light Cameras

Arizona Freeway Speed Cameras Go Bye Bye

Cameras Turned Off this Summer on July 15, 2010

The photo enforcement cameras on Arizona freeways that have caused much consternation for many Valley drivers will be turned off. The Department of Public Safety sent a letter to Redflex Traffic Systems, the company that operates the cameras, ending their contract. According to the letter sent to Redflex, "DPS wishes to be clear that its decision to not renew the contract is not a reflection of your company's services or performance of the contract, but a change in the agency's focus." While the 78 fixed and mobile cameras placed strategically along the freeways will be shut down, speed-enforcement and red-light cameras located on city streets will continue to snap offenders. 

While the camera system was expected to bring in money for the state, former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who implemented the program, said that was never the primary objective. In any case, the projected $90 million never materialized. During an 18-month time span -- September 2008 through the end of March 2010 -- only about 30 percent of the 1.2 million issued citations were ever paid. 

Moreno Valley Dumps Red Light Cameras

Alessandro Blvd & Perris Intersection, Moreno Valley, CA

The money-making allure of red light cameras has worn off in a pair of Southern California cities as drivers get educated and ticket revenue drops and legal activity rises. In Moreno Valley on Tuesday, the city council voted 3-1 to shut down the automated ticketing machines that have been operating since 2008.

“Due to legal activities in the state legislature in the past few years regarding red light photo enforcement and the lack of public support for the program, city council’s consensus is to discontinue the existing red light photo enforcement service at the end of its 2-year pilot program,” Public Works Director Chris A. Vogt wrote in a memo to the mayor and council. At least one member of the public believed the council’s unspoken motivation has been the lack of expected revenue being generated by the program.

The city will notify Redflex Traffic Systems to remove its equipment from Frederick Street at Centerpoint Drive, and Perris at Alessandro boulevards. Eric Lewis, the city's traffic engineer, evaluated the data and said the 18-month test program was successful: Accidents dropped by a third at Frederick/Centerpoint and 16 percent at the Perris/Alessandro. But the program proved to be a marginal moneymaker, the public detested it and the council decided it wasn't worth it.

Avondale Arizona Shuts Down Red Light Cameras

The Arizona Republic, David Madrid - Feb. 10, 2010

To save money, the city is terminating its contract with Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions, which operates traffic-enforcement cameras. The two intersections with red-light cameras are at Dysart Road and Van Buren Street and at Dysart and McDowell roads. The city uses a photo-speed-enforcement van throughout the city.

The cameras began snapping red-light runners in February 2006. In June 2007, the city began a speed-enforcement-van trial, which led to the van contract. In February 2009, the council approved expanding the program to include two more photo-red-light intersections. All four intersections were to be modified to enforce both red-light and speed violations. The project was to be completed in March.  That isn't happening.

The camera program was popular with the council, but it costs $425,000. That includes contractor fees, officer overtime, a traffic program coordinator, and court staff. By ending the program, the net savings to the city is $106,390. The council has always maintained that the cameras weren't there to raise revenue but for safety.

Police Chief Kevin Kotsur said there has been a drop in traffic accidents, but he believes the bad economy means fewer people driving. And the costs of the program are rising every year.  "Looking at the stats, there's no significant correlation between the number of accidents and the impact photo enforcement has been having on those wrecks," he said. "It's down all over the city. It's down all over the state."