Caught by the camera?

Bill would allow system to zero in on traffic violators

(American Traffic Solutions photo) A monitoring system similar to what is being considered for Massachusetts would feature a camera encased in a permanent enclosure.

The light has been yellow a little too long, but there's no police officer in sight, so you punch it anyway, zipping through as the opposing traffic gets the green. A few weeks later, a ticket shows up in the mail, with a picture of your car in the middle of the intersection, license plate clear as day, and the exact time shown since the light turned red.

Busted.

That scene could soon be reality in Massachusetts if a bill working its way through the State House is approved.

Red-light cameras are used all over the country, and a similar system currently works to catch drivers who use the Fast Lane at tolls without a transponder.

Fining drivers who run red lights without a police officer to see it has been eagerly awaited in many communities, as officials see thousands in potential revenue. Some cities and towns, including Lawrence, Brockton, Rockland, and Saugus, haven't waited for the Legislature - they've enacted ordinances approving the system. Others are studying it.

Until legislation passes, however, no community can install the cameras without running up against state law.

Bills to legalize red-light cameras have been languishing at the State House for years, but last week, a version that would give all cities and towns the option to use the systems was passed by the Legislature's joint Committee on Transportation. The measure included a $25 fine, reduced from $100, and no insurance surcharge for car owners who are issued tickets.

State Senator Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican and member of the Transportation Committee, said despite continuing opposition, the proposed legislation certainly has more momentum than in years past.

"I think people are becoming less adherent to our traffic laws," Hedlund said. "But the flip side of that is this just strikes me as maybe a little too much '1984'-ish."

Hedlund "reserved his rights" in voting on the decision to move the measure out of committee, meaning he didn't vote either way because he is on the fence. Coincidentally, Hedlund received an automated ticket about a decade ago in Boston, which was running an experimental red-light camera program. He said he got stuck behind a bus at Beacon and Tremont streets as the light turned red. He contested the ticket, and won.

The current measure would have to pass the House and Senate by July 31, when the formal legislative session ends, but Hedlund said that is entirely possible. It could move quickly now out of the Ways and Means Committee and onto the House floor, where it would pass, he predicted.

Just in the last year or two, there has been a noticeable shift in attitude toward red-light cameras. Cities and towns - police chiefs and mayors and town meeting members - are increasingly talking about it, studying it, and winning approval from residents. They are meeting with the companies that provide the technology to see how it works. And they are lobbying Beacon Hill for a change.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association is helping the cause.

"We're very encouraged by the bill coming out of the committee," said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the association, which advocates on behalf of municipalities. "Over the last couple of years, there's been a significant increase in interest."

State Representative Patrick Natale, a Woburn Democrat, was one of only two legislators on the Transportation Committee to vote against the bill. He said he believes the support is about money, and even though cities and towns are struggling, it's wrong to hit taxpayers with these kinds of tickets.

"I really do believe at the end of the day, a lot of these red-light cameras they want to install have everything to do with generating revenue for cities and towns," he said. "This is not the route we should go."

He said he also doesn't buy the promise that it wouldn't add to a driver's insurance bills. The seat-belt law was originally the same way, but has since been changed, he noted.

Arguments against the cameras include privacy intrusion and a concern, supported by some studies, that rear-end accidents increase because drivers slam on their brakes to avoid tickets. Police unions have opposed the systems, saying traffic enforcement is the job of officers.

Supporters point to studies that indicate such systems help save lives.

Wellesley Police Chief Terrence Cunningham is first vice president and incoming president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, which actively supports red-light cameras.

"We think it's effective," he said. "We've looked at studies that talk about rear-end collisions and we don't think there's a lot of validity to those - there's some, a learning curve for folks."

He said most of the intersections along Route 16 in Wellesley see red-light scofflaws.

Likewise, Marlborough has problems on its major roads, especially the intersections along both Route 85 and Route 20, said Police Chief Mark Leonard.

"If it's something that can help to reduce accidents and therefore injuries, it's a good thing, and I think most people would agree with that," he said.

He attributes the decade-long debate to "typical New England resistance to that type of thing."

"Obviously you do have that big-brother-is-watching concern, I suppose," said Leonard. "The fact is with limited resources, anytime we can use technology to make communities safer, it's a good thing. If you're not breaking the law, you don't have anything to worry about."

Although the technology varies somewhat by company, Josh Weiss, a spokesman for Arizona-based supplier American Traffic Solutions, explained how his company's systems work.

In some communities, the company splits the ticket revenue with towns on a negotiated percentage basis. In Massachusetts, the percentage setup would be outlawed, he said, so the company would charge a flat fee per camera to municipalities. He said he could not estimate what that fee would be.

Signs are placed at the intersection warning drivers of the monitoring system, said Weiss. The cameras take two shots, one before the vehicle enters the intersection, showing the light already red, and another when the car is in the intersection, with a zoom in to the license plate on either shot. Videotape is also recorded. The information is sent to the local police department for review; whether to send out a ticket is decided locally. A ticket would go to the registered owner, can appeal the fine.

Weiss said his company has seen a huge jump in interest from cities and towns across the state, and has talked to about 75 so far, mostly in the last year.

The company already has contracts with two municipalities in the state, Salem and Dartmouth, pending legislative approval. Nationally, his company works in 350 towns and cities, including New York, in 27 states.

In addition to reducing the fine from $100 to $25, the bill that made it through the Transportation Committee last week specifically prohibits the system from taking "a frontal view photograph" of the vehicle, which could presumably be used to identify the driver.

The photos cannot be used in any other judicial or administrative proceeding other than ones specifically associated with the running of a red light. Also, according to the bill, the violation does not become part of the vehicle owner's operating record.

In order to address concerns about the financial incentive for the company that provides the cameras, the bill states that the company cannot be paid based on the number of citations or a percentage of that revenue.

The bill is sponsored by state Representative Kevin Honan, a Brighton Democrat, who did not return several calls for comment last week.

Numerous studies on the effects of such systems have been done, with some showing the red-light cameras as effective and some finding them to be ineffective or even detrimental.

One of the more detailed reports was completed by the US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration in 2005. The study evaluated 132 intersections in seven municipalities and counties, and found that right-angle crashes (the kind expected when someone runs a red light) went down slightly more than rear-end collisions went up. When injuries and costs were factored in, the study found a "modest" benefit in using red-light cameras.

The ACLU of Massachusetts is concerned about several problems with red-light camera systems, according to Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney.

"Once they put these things in place, they never remain confined to that original purpose," she said. "The 'Big Brother is watching you' example is real." She said the ACLU also is concerned about the reports that say rear-end collisions go up as people hit their brakes to avoid a ticket.

"Most people would like to see more police out there," said Wunsch.

Lisa Kocian can be reached at 508-820-4231 or lkocian@globe.com.