Traffic surveillance cameras smooth out traffic congestion that leads to costly and deadly accidents. Since 1997, the Utah Department of Transportation has used analog CCTV cameras to assist emergency response teams, provide drivers with real-time road updates, and collect data on traffic patterns and congestion.
Collectively, this network of live traffic cameras is called ATMS (Advanced Traffic Management System) and was first implemented during the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics. Utah’s traffic surveillance system is now will go digital, making real-time recovery from accidents and incidents much faster with the new cameras. Although the new video surveillance system costs almost twice as much as the old one, the new one will last longer and be easier to repair.
Digital cameras link road condition information to dispatchers who inform drivers via Utah 69 message signs that the road is closed, wet, or there is an accident ahead. The Utah Department of Transportation also interprets camera data to assess and reprogram traffic signals in real time to improve traffic flow in the event of football games or severe weather. Message boards also inform drivers of Amber Alerts and detours on roads under construction. The cameras are also linked to a website (“Know Before You Go”) that allows Internet users to prepare for driving before getting into their car.
In Atlanta, eight surveillance cameras were installed in Midtown as part of the first phase of a larger video surveillance program. The cameras are linked by a secure Nextel communications system that enables operators to speed up emergency response time at accident and crime scenes.
What about privacy issues?
The chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) show concern about the prevalence of these traffic cameras. While they admit that these cameras are in public places, they state that police officers and transportation officials must be properly trained when using these cameras so that the images are used correctly. The ACLU notes that these cameras could capture gay parades and protest rallies, and the subjects of those videos could theoretically be blackmailed. They suggest that state legislatures should draft clear procedural guidelines and legislation that address the how and why of video surveillance use, as well as the privacy issues of subject likenesses when captured on video.
A balance can be struck between maintaining public and transportation safety while preserving citizens’ privacy rights. In this era of terrorism, video surveillance will not disappear, as it is necessary to promote and preserve security for the common good.
Copyright © 2005 Evaluateek Publishing.