F O U R CAMERA ANGLES CONTINUED FROM PAGE THREE F I V E Photo courtesy of Gatso USA. USING THE TECHNOLOGY: A REVIEW OF THREE DIFFERENT STATE INITIATIVES Several states have successfully implemented automated enforcement programs. Here are three case studies—two that look at current programs and one that looks at a program still in the legislative phase. If passed, the pilot program would be implemented on roadways determined by PennDOT and possibly the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC). The PTC has been supportive of the legislation since it was introduced at the state capitol almost two years ago. It has also been promoting its Operation Orange Squeeze, an enforcement initiative in partnership with the Pennsylvania State Police. “The goal of the legislation is to provide another ‘tool’ in our ‘toolbox’ to keep people safe when driving on our roadways,” says Mark Compton, chief executive officer of the PTC. “We currently have Pennsylvania State Troopers placed within active work zones to slow down the motorists, which has been effective, but their presence is not always available. More of our communities need the troopers in other emergencies, so implementing [an automated enforcement] program will help free up those resources to maintain their support in other areas across the state.” ILLINOIS Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) implemented enforcement cameras in 2005. With this program, Illinois State Police are positioned in vans equipped with systems to track drivers going above the posted speed limit. Studies conducted by IDOT and the Illinois Center for Transportation at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reviewed the effectiveness of the program, and the results show a 3 to 8 mph decrease in the speed of vehicles. Between 2006 and  2016, Illinois reported about a 35 percent reduction in work zone fatalities. Additionally, IDOT deployed portable rumble strips in targeted locations throughout the state and coordinated sensors to relay traffic flow conditions via digital message boards in work zones called Smart Work Zones. MARYLAND Maryland piloted a program called SafeZones in 2009, and it was fully implemented in July 2010. The goal of the program is to reduce the speed of drivers in work zones to make them safer for workers, drivers, and their passengers. When approaching work zones, motorists see advanced signage alerts with the posted speed limit and a warning that the zone is an automated speed enforcement area. Where SafeZones technology is present, digital speed trailers display the speed of passing vehicles to encourage drivers to check their speed and slow in advance of the speed camera device. Enforcement vehicles displaying the SafeZones logo travel throughout the state to eligible work zones and use laser technology and mounted cameras to further incentivize drivers to slow down. When the program began, seven out of every 100 drivers were exceeding the posted speed limit by 12 mph or more. According to a 2017 fact sheet, the Maryland SafeZones program has resulted in a 90 percent reduction in the number of speeding vehicles in work zones. REVIEWING THE PHOTOGRAPH: OPPOSITION TO AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS There has been pushback among stakeholders in various states that is mainly centered on government overreach and concerns regarding the accuracy of the technology. In Pennsylvania, members of the community have voiced concerns that the fines for this program would not be allocated to the appropriate groups in the government. In its current state, the bill proposes these fines would be divided between several groups, such as the state Motor License Fund, which pays for local and state transportation expenses, the State Police, PennDOT, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission under a fixed formula—which is still in discussion with legislators. “Visible traffic enforcement by law enforcement remains the most effective means of deterring violations of traffic law,” says Ted Leonard, executive director of the Pennsylvania AAA Foundation. “However, we recognize the role that automated enforcement can play in improving safety for motorists. Automated speed enforcement should be used for safety. It violates the public trust when policymakers turn to automated enforcement as a revenue source.” The National Motorists Association (NMA) is against speed camera use in all states. The NMA website lists its concerns, which include false readings by the photo systems, the lack of certifiable witnesses to violations, and the reliance on postal mail to deliver tickets. THE FINAL SHOT: FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY There are pros and cons to any new type of automated technology when it comes to the safety of the traveling public. It is important to remember that everyone involved is focused on establishing safe practices so motorists and workers alike can return home at the end of each day. To learn more about the work zone camera laws in your state, visit your department of transportation website or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at iihs.org. PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania does not have a work zone enforcement program that uses automated technology, yet according to 2014 Pennsylvania Crash Facts and Statistics, a report published by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), 47 percent of work zone crashes in the state resulted in fatalities or injuries. However, there is legislation modeled after the success of the Maryland and Illinois programs currently in review with the Pennsylvania Senate. The bill is sponsored by Sens. David Argall and Judith L. Schwank. They came together to craft a proposal for a three-year pilot program to study the implementation of speed-timing devices and automated speed enforcement systems on highways in the commonwealth. “It has been a rewarding experience to have our legislators come together in a bipartisan fashion to create this bill,” says Jon Hopcraft, chief of staff for Sen. Scott Wagner and previous legislative and communications director for Sen. Argall. “This bill is about 50 percent of the way to making it to the final steps of the legislative process.”