Automated Traffic Enforcement in Massachusetts Today
Unlike many other states, Massachusetts does not allow cities and towns to use speed or red light cameras on their streets. Prior to the current session, statewide bills to authorize automated traffic enforcement (“ATE”) have been repeatedly stalled or been sent to “study,” which effectively kills a bill for that session.
The only narrow exceptions are recent laws that allow the MBTA and school districts to start using bus-mounted cameras to record and issue fines to enforce traffic laws related to buses. These measures focus on preventing illegal parking in bus stops and bus-only lanes, as well as passing school buses that have their stop signs displayed. While they mark a big step toward safer streets, these laws do not address the major problems of speeding, running red lights, illegal right turns, and bike lane obstructions in heavily trafficked areas.
​
Our proposal would finally authorize the use of safe, limited ATE tools across the Commonwealth. Many cities and towns already want to implement ATE programs—this bill will allow them to do so in a fair, smart, and privacy-protecting manner.
For over five years, lawmakers, traffic safety advocates, and crash victims’ families have been trying to pass a statewide ATE law in Massachusetts. The push for statewide ATE began during the 2019-2020 legislative session, when a broad ATE bill advanced to the Senate but lost momentum due to controversies surrounding over-enforcement and the accumulation of personal data. Similar bills were introduced in subsequent legislative sessions, but were met with resistance based on several recurring concerns:
Where Others Stalled
1. Privacy
Legislators and civil liberties advocates warned about expanding government surveillance of everyday driving, especially if municipalities collected more data than necessary to issue a citation. One area of particular concern is that images or license plate data could be used for unrelated law-enforcement purposes.
2. Equity
Equity advocates and stakeholders worried that poorly designed systems and burdensome fine structures could disproportionately burden low-income residents and communities of color—the same communities that are most harmed by traffic violations and that tend to lack effective traffic calming mechanisms (like speed bumps and traffic circles) due to historic underinvestment by the state.
3. Revenue Generation
Critics voiced the concern that ATE systems would essentially act as an ATM for municipalities to raise revenue for their general budgets. Past proposals either failed to adequately limit municipalities’ use of funds or otherwise did not seem to be driven by genuine concerns for the safety of motorists. Critics also worried about the risk of corruption that often accompanies privatizing public services, as past proposals lacked limitations on municipalities’ contracts with camera vendors.
4. Safety
Earlier bills did not always tie camera placement and program design to data concerning crash hotspots. Or they failed to consider whether the problem could be better addressed in particular areas by other solutions, like infrastructural improvements and enhanced driver education.
Current Proposals
Legislators have continued to iterate and innovate as public support for ATE has increased. Governor Healey’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 seeks to authorize automated enforcement for speeding alone. Two bills pending before the state legislature (S.2344 and H.3754) expand the list of camera enforceable violations to red-light infractions. But these proposals:
​
-
Fail to limit ATE to the most safety-enhancing locations.
-
Keep the revenue generated from ATE in the hands of MassDOT without providing guidelines for how those funds can be reinvested into municipalities to resolve underlying equity issues.
-
Impose a uniform penalty without providing any alternative to payment.
-
Do not do enough to prevent drivers’ biometric data from entering the state system.
-
Do not address the dangers caused by bike lane obstruction.
While past bills have stalled, the safety problems they were meant to address have gotten worse. The proposals before the legislature today are strong, but incomplete. Our legislation is designed to fill the gaps they leave open and propose new ideas that appeal to diverse community stakeholders. To succeed where past efforts fell short, legislation must pair clear safety benefits with equally clear protections for civil liberties.