Where Kansas stands on traffic enforcement:
- Speed camera laws: No laws in place
- Red light camera laws: No laws in place

Red light and speed cameras are typically permitted by state law and city, county, or area ordinances. Their use, however, is not ubiquitous.

The spread of these automatic traffic enforcement cameras—especially red light cameras—has received major backlash. Critics say the cameras are an example of policing for profit or that they don't do enough to protect pedestrians.

Eight states prohibit red light cameras, and the same number doesn't allow speed cameras. Both types are illegal in six states: Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a ban into law in 2019 after years of opposing them as the state's attorney general. His office cited a study by two economics professors who determined that red light cameras increased rear-end accidents—a common complaint from opponents. On the other hand, a study by the IIHS showed that red light cameras reduce fatal crashes at monitored intersections.

Prior to the Texas ban, red light cameras in the city of Plano drove accidents down by a third and simultaneously raised money for trauma centers and traffic safety programs. State police officials had also supported the cameras.

Bias is another point of contention in automated traffic enforcement. Proponents say that cameras are equitable, as they follow consistent rules and apply the same repercussions for all vehicles running red lights or speeding, eliminating any prejudiced application of laws by police officers.

However, the issue of where cameras are placed can still contribute to and reinforce discrimination in law enforcement. For instance, a ProPublica series—backed up by University of Illinois Chicago research—found that Chicago's automated red light and speed camera programs disproportionately ticketed Black and Latino motorists, with dire financial consequences. Meanwhile, the city of Rochester, New York, ended a six-year red light camera program in 2016 after determining that it unevenly fined low-income residents.

Even the studies that showed discrimination also found that the cameras improved safety. As with any form of law enforcement, automated cameras are a tool with benefits and drawbacks that must be weighed in community decisions.

ProPublica reported that Chicago would review cameras at locations where evidence suggested they didn't reduce crashes but that the city wasn't considering cutting or downsizing the program. Federal Highway Administration guidance on speed cameras provides that they should supplement other efforts, including more traditional enforcement measures, engineering, and education, to "alter the social norms of speeding."

The number of red light cameras has actually decreased drastically over the past decade amid community opposition and lack of financial viability as well as reductions in citations (i.e., fewer people running red lights). Meanwhile, the number of communities with speed cameras has continued to grow—and helped alter dangerous driving habits.

Federal regulations say states could spend up to 10% of their allocated Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds on automated traffic enforcement measures. This means over $1.5 billion in federal funding is available to expand these technologies. But since not all states allow them—and considering other highway safety initiatives that could be funded instead—the real investment will likely be much smaller.

Still, as states and jurisdictions deal with mounting speed-related fatal crashes, which remain at the highest levels in over a decade following a 2020 peak, Americans should expect to encounter enforcement cameras in their travels.

This story features data reporting and writing by Paxtyn Merten and is part of a series utilizing data automation across 50 states and Washington D.C.